I'm for justice and equity for all peoples everywhere. I am also for exposing lies and corruption, particularly the lies of the corporations that have a tight grip on humanity, all for profit and control. A grip that has been instrumental in the rape and pillage of indigenous peoples planet wide, for centuries.
You have just over a month to make a submission folks. This is a time worn tactic… timing is everything. The ridiculous thing too is, some of these items are common cooking ingredients! And comfrey, well I’ve just recently been wondering why am I not seeing that useful plant as much as I used to. Do you really still trust your leaders? How does this move promote the health & well being of NZ citizens? It doesn’t. It promotes the interests of those folk who meet at Davos, currently seeking to force more of their ‘safe and effectives’ upon you. EWR
From hatchardreport.com
Natural Products Regulation—An Overreach of Government Control
Civilisations come and go through the ages. When governments empower people, they harness the intelligence and creativity of their citizens for the good of all; when they seek to control their populations, they fall into decline.
Following three years of pandemic control, governments are not stopping there. Here in New Zealand, the government has introduced the “Therapeutic Products Bill,” which will control how products which appear to benefit health are manufactured, prescribed, imported, advertised, supplied and exported. According to Health Minister Andrew Little:
“It will enable New Zealand to take advantage of advances in medicine, such as cell and tissue therapies, emerging gene therapies, and the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning software. Having risk-proportionate approval systems will improve access to necessary and life-saving medicines, such as vaccines in a pandemic.”
An important part of the bill aims to regulate the natural health products used by more than 50% of our population. This is the third attempt of the Labour Party to introduce extreme regulation of the public’s options to choose their medical care, supplements and diet. Their earlier two attempts failed because of vocal public opposition. In 2017 Labour opted for a prohibited list of 300 common herbal ingredients ( for some of these see photo):
Control of Our Food Supply
It won’t have escaped your notice that many of these like Cinnamon and Mustard are currently sold in shops. So how on earth did they get onto a prohibited list? The answer lies in attempts to gain control of our food supply.
Natural products that are beneficial to health cannot be patented, but synthetic copies can be. To make this work, the products that grow in gardens need to be banned.
Labour and the Ministry of Health did not make this list up, the list was supplied by the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA) of which Medsafe is a member. ICMRA is largely funded by the pharmaceutical industry whose interests they serve. You can read all about it in my book Your DNA Diet, available as a Kindle from Amazon or a hard copy from the Hatchard Report.
Labour says it has learned from prior public opposition. This time the Bill will not name any prohibited ingredients. Instead is an enabling bill, the type of legislation made famous by Adolf Hitler. The Bill establishes a new regulator headed by an independent statutory officer with a wide remit:
The new regulator will be responsible for ensuring the safety, quality, and efficacy of natural products. It will design and implement proportionate, risk-based market authorisation pathways. Its functions will include, in addition to market authorisation, licensing controlled activities, post-market surveillance, and compliance.
These services will be funded through levies on the industry which are liable to be costly. Government regulatory schemes mooted in the last two attempts were likely to push small players out of the market due to the cost of compliance, as happened as a result of the Food Bill.
Crucially the Bill also includes a range of modern enforcement tools allowing for a graduated and proportionate response to breaches, including tiered criminal offences, strict liability offences, improved infringement notices and a civil pecuniary penalty regime.
In other words, the Bill appoints a new, as yet, unnamed regulator who is being empowered to do whatever he thinks fit to control the manufacture and availability of supplements. He could and is, in fact, very likely to publish a list of banned herbal ingredients soon after his appointment. The list is ready to go from the ICMRA database connected to Medsafe, courtesy of the pharmaceutical industry.
If we wish to be able to continue to freely chose herbal medicines and supplements without government interference, we will need to speak up. Go to this link to make a submission before February 15th. Write to your MP and complain that the appointment of a regulator amounts to an open ended blank cheque to control the use of products used by more than 50% of our population without fully specifying the principles he should use.
In a fair world, Aruna Rodrigues would be heralded as an incredible individual for her ongoing struggle to protect the socio-economic and environmental integrity of India. So says respected environmentalist, author and campaigner Leo Saldanha, GMWatch reported.
He adds: “Since 2005, she has tirelessly pursued a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court of India, in which she has made a case why India should not yield to pressures from mega agri-transnational corporations and certain sections of the Indian agricultural sector who are keen on promoting genetically modified organisms in farming.”
India’s apex regulatory body, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee, recently sanctioned genetically modified (GM) mustard for cultivation. This would be India’s first GM food crop, despite a public interest litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court to prevent cultivation as well as the widespread rejection of GM mustard by farmers’ organisations.
Aruna Rodrigues, the lead petitioner of the PIL, has exposed in her various submissions to court that claims about yield increases through GM mustard to be completely baseless. She indicates how data has been rigged and manipulated and protocols have been severely compromised, and that the government and its regulators are parroting the false claims of the crop developers.
Thanks to the PIL, the Supreme Court put a stay on the commercial release of GM Mustard on 3 November 2022.
Independent experts who have looked at the biosafety data submitted by the crop developer at Delhi University have clearly pointed out that GM mustard has not been tested rigorously and adequately.
India is a centre for diversity for mustard and several high-level official committees have recommended against transgenic technologies in crops for which the country is the centre of origin or centre of diversity.
Various high-level reports have also advised against introducing GM food crops to India per se. These reports conclude that GM crops are unsuitable for India and that biosafety and regulatory procedures are wholly inadequate.
Rodrigues also played a leading role in preventing commercial cultivation of GM brinjal more than a decade ago. Her tireless efforts have been a thorn in the side of global agritech corporations and seriously compromised regulatory officials who have for the best part of two decades been trying to get GM food crops cultivated in India.
There is much at stake.
India has a lot to lose, not least its food and seed sovereignty and contamination of its crops as well as the risks genetically modified organisms (GMOs) pose to human health.
The industry has much to gain.
Global biotech corporations like Bayer and Corteva are seeking to increase their control over the future of food and farming by extensively patenting plants and developing a new generation of GMOs.
They seek to claim all plants with those genetic traits as their ‘invention’. Such patents on plants would restrict farmers’ access to seeds and impede breeders from developing new plants as both would have to ask for consent and pay fees to the biotech companies.
According to an October 2022 report, the global GM crop and seed market is projected to reach $46 billion by 2027. That is up from an estimated US$30.6 billion in 2020. The US market is estimated at $8.4 billion, while China is forecast to reach a projected market size of US$10 billion by the year 2027.
Key global players include AgReliant Genetics LLC, BASF SE, Bayer Crop Science, Canterra Seeds Holdings, DLF Seeds & Science and Corteva (Dow/DuPont).
If India succumbs to pressure, that figure of $46 billion by 2027 could be much larger. With 1.4 billion people, India represents a massive financially lucrative cash cow.
For instance, Goldstein Research pushes pro-GM industry talking points and laments about resistance to GM food seeds as it is hindering the growth of India’s GM seed market. Even so, it forecasts that the Indian GM seed market is set to reach US$13.1 billion by 2025 (cotton is the only legally sanctioned GM crop in India at this time).
GM mustard is regarded as a pioneering food crop in India – it would open the floodgates for many other GM food crops that are in the pipeline under a veil of secrecy, including wheat, rice, brinjal and chickpea.
But – it seems – genuine science stands in the way. GM mustard is unwanted, unneeded and fails to stand up to scientific rigour.
Maybe that is why, in December 2022, the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) prevented serving and former public officials from expressing any opinion or writing any article on the approval to release GM mustard. This is a ‘gag order’ and an attempt to close down debate on the matter and to keep the public in the dark on the issue.
Trade and agriculture policy specialist Devinder Sharma says that silencing scientific voices indicates there is more to hide than reveal. He says that every claim that the ICAR makes about GM mustard can be challenged. And it has been – in court. Sharma adds that the US is placing tremendous pressure on India to embrace GM crops.
In finishing, let us turn to where this article began – with Aruna Rodrigues.
Leo Saldanha, who is mentioned at the start of this article, is forthright on the Change.org website in condemning a recent attack on Rodrigues.
Due to Rodrigues, Saldanha says, the Supreme Court has time and again questioned the enthusiasm with which the Indian government and several public institutions have collaborated, questionably and controversially, in promoting GM foods and crops.
Just before Christmas, however, Aruna Rodrigues was unexpectedly forcibly evicted from her ancestral home by the Indian army. The Defence Estate Office is the custodian of all military properties of India and is required to secure such properties by following the due process of law.
Saldanha notes that Rodrigues’ home has been with her family from 1892 – legally secured via proper sale deeds. But about 27 years ago, the Defence Estate Office made a claim on the house. This claim was challenged, and the matter has been in court since then. Consequently, any action against the occupant should be only through due process of law.
On 20 December 2022, a court ruled that Aruna Rodrigues has occupation rights to the house. Yet the Defence Estate Officer moved into the house with army personnel – without any court directive – and physically removed her and threw the contents of the house onto the street. Within hours, a court ruled in Rodrigues favour. By then, however, the damage had been done.
As Saldanha says, we can only wonder whether any of this is connected to Rodrigues’ case before the Supreme Court. Given the billions of dollars at stake for the global agritech companies, it would indeed be wise to wonder.
Colin Todhunter is a research associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization with an interest in food, agriculture and development issues.
Note: due to greater censorship now, I am finding that many links disappear or lead to error pages. I am therefore reproducing articles in their entirety rather than one or two paragraphs with a link to the source. Please contact me if I’ve reproduced your article in this way and you are not ok with it. EWR
New research published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology reveals that in 2020 alone, some 74 metric tons of microplastics – that is, the plastic particulates released from waste into the environment – fell on the city of Auckland in New Zealand via rainfall.
The first peer-reviewed study of its kind to calculate the total mass of microplastics in a city’s air, the paper found that the pollution equivalent of three million plastic bottles falls on Auckland in an average year – a truly astounding level that is much higher than generally accepted estimates.
Researchers say the global prevalence of airborne microplastics appears to be much higher than previously believed. Most of these particulates are too small to be seen with the naked eye, though scientists were able to identify them using a colored, light-emitting dye.
For analysis, researchers also applied heat treatment, which allowed them to calculate an aggregate mass of the particulates in terms of volume and tonnage. (Related: The average person consumes a credit card’s worth of microplastics every week in tainted food.)
“The smaller the size ranges we looked at, the more microplastics we saw,” said Joel Rindelaub, the study’s lead author and a chemical scientist at The University of Auckland. “This is notable because the smallest sizes are the most toxicologically relevant.”
Chances are you’re inhaling microplastics right now and don’t even know it
The smaller the size of a microplastic particulate, the easier time it has being inhaled and entering cells. If small enough, microplastics can even build up in vital organs such as the liver and cross the blood-brain barrier, accumulating in the brain.
In one square meter in one day in 2020, the average number of airborne plastics floating around Auckland was found to be 4,885. Comparatively for that same year in the same amount of space, London’s count was just 771.
A 2019 study that looked at the cities of Hamburg and Paris found that airborne plastics in that same one-square-meter space were 275 and 110, respectively.
“The discrepancy is largely because of the Auckland study’s inclusion of smaller size ranges, which were not part of previous research,” noted Bloomberg.
Rindelaub says that while more work needs to be done to quantify precisely how much plastic the average person is breathing in, it is clear from what we already know that inhalation of microplastics “is an important route of exposure” that cannot be ignored.
Since the 1950s when plastics first started being mass produced, some 8.3 billion metric tons of it have been generated. Of that, 79 percent has ended up in landfills or been dumped in the wild where it gradually breaks down and turns into microplastics.
“Once they enter the natural environment, they can pollute soil, kill wildlife and find their way into the food chain,” reports indicate.
In Auckland, the most-detected form of plastic was polyethylene, followed by polycarbonate. The former is a common packaging material while the latter is used in electrical and electronic appliances.
Since Auckland is located near the ocean and gets heavy winds from the Hauraki Gulf of New Zealand’s North Island, it is speculated that this could be a reason why more microplastics are being detected there compared to other more inland cities in other parts of the world.
“The production of airborne microplastics from breaking waves could be a key part of the global transport of microplastics,” Rindelaub explained. “And it could help explain how some microplastics get into the atmosphere and are carried to remote places, like here in New Zealand.”
The world’s growing microplastics problem is much more serious than many people realize. To learn more about the dangers and toxicity of exposure, be sure to check out Microplastics.news.
Science and opinion have become increasingly conflated, in large part because of corporate influence. As we explain in “Science for Sale,” an investigative series by the Center for Public Integrity and co-published with Vice.com, industry-backed research has exploded — often with the aim of obscuring the truth — as government-funded science dwindles. Read more.
The lawyer, Darrell Grams, explained that Ford had been losing lawsuits filed by former auto mechanics alleging asbestos in brakes had given them mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer virtually always tied to asbestos exposure. Grams asked Paustenbach, then a vice president with the consulting firm Exponent, if he had any interest in studying the disease’s possible association with brake work. A meeting cemented the deal.
Paustenbach, a prolific author of scientific papers who’d worked with Grams on Dow Corning’s defense against silicone breast-implant illness claims, had barely looked at asbestos to that point. “I really started to get serious about studying asbestos after I met Mr. Grams, that’s for sure,” Paustenbach testified in a sworn deposition in June 2015. Before that, he said, the topic “wasn’t that interesting to me.”
Thus began a relationship that, according to recent depositions, has enriched Exponent by $18.2 million and brought another $21 million to Cardno ChemRisk, a similar firm Paustenbach founded in 1985, left and restarted in 2003. All told, testimony shows, Ford has spent nearly $40 million funding journal articles and expert testimony concluding there is no evidence brake mechanics are at increased risk of developing mesothelioma. This finding, repeated countless times in courtrooms and law offices over the past 15 years, is an attempt at scientific misdirection aimed at extricating Ford from lawsuits, critics say.
“They’ve published a lot, but they’ve really produced no new science,” said John Dement, a professor in Duke University’s Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and an asbestos researcher for more than four decades. “Fifteen years ago, I thought the issue of asbestos risk assessment was pretty much defined. All they’ve accomplished is to try to generate doubt where, really, little doubt existed.”
The glut of corporate-financed science has yielded mixed results. Exponent had a role in jury trials won by Ford in St. Louis and Pittsburgh last year, for example, and in a trial Ford lost in Tennessee. Judges have noted the infusion of controversy into a subject that for many years was not controversial in the least. A veteran asbestos judge in Wayne County, Michigan, wrote in an opinion that he’d never encountered the argument that “the science was not there” on mesothelioma and brakes until he heard a case involving an Exponent witness.
The discord over brakes bankrolled by Ford “has, in certain cases, tipped the scales for the defendants with juries,” said plaintiffs’ lawyer Jon Ruckdeschel. “More frequently, it has been used by industry lawyers to increase the costs and burdens on the courts and sick mechanics by creating a tidal wave of pre-trial litigation regarding the ‘science.’ ”
A troubling history
Over the past decade 109 physicians, scientists and academics from 17 countries have signed legal briefs affirming that asbestos in brakes can cause mesothelioma. The World Health Organization and other research and regulatory bodies maintain that there is no safe exposure level for asbestos and that all forms of the mineral — including the most common one, chrysotile, found in brakes — can produce mesothelioma.
Worries about brakes as a source of disease go back decades. A 1971 Ford memo shows that while the company didn’t believe brake dust unleashed by mechanics contained significant amounts of asbestos, it already was exploring alternatives to asbestos brake linings. One of them, made of metal and carbon, performed well, the memo says, “but the cost penalty is severe ($1.25/car just for front-end brakes).”
A Ford spokeswoman declined to comment for this article. In its 2014 annual report, the company said, “Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles over the years. We are prepared to defend these cases, and believe that the scientific evidence confirms our long-standing position that there is no increased risk of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to the type of asbestos formerly used in the brakes on our vehicles.” Ford announced recently that it earned a record pretax profit of $10.5 billion in 2015.
Dennis Paustenbach (ICIJ.org)
A written statement to the Center for Public Integrity delivered on behalf of Paustenbach by a public-relations firm says, “Dennis was viewed as one of the leading risk assessment experts in the country, and was contacted by Ford because of his experience and expertise in this field. … As Dennis and others learned more about brake dust, it was clear that while there was considerable data on the subject, the scientific information had never been synthesized and analyzed.”
His conclusion after reviewing the scientific literature, according to the statement: “There is no credible study that has shown an increased risk of disease in auto mechanics.”
An Exponent vice president declined to comment. On its website, the 49-year-old firm, originally known as Failure Analysis Associates, says, “We evaluate complex human health and environmental issues to find cost-effective solutions. … By introducing a new way of thinking about an existing situation, we assist clients to overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles.”
A Center review of abstracts on the National Institutes of Health’s PubMed website turned up 10 articles on asbestos brakes co-authored by scientists affiliated with Exponent or Cardno ChemRisk since 2003. (The latter was known simply as ChemRisk until it was acquired by Brisbane, Australia-based Cardno in 2012). None of the articles reported an elevated risk of mesothelioma among vehicle mechanics.
Many physicians and scientists say, however, that these papers muddy the waters by drawing overly broad conclusions from earlier studies of workers who might have had no contact with asbestos brakes. “In the asbestos area the whole literature has been so warped by publications just supporting litigation,” said Dement, of Duke. “It has a real negative impact on pushing the science forward.” Dement said he has, on rare occasions, consulted for plaintiffs in the past 10 or 15 years, earmarking nearly all fees for the university.
In a 2007 article, two researchers at George Washington University — one of whom, David Michaels, now heads the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration — reported finding six “litigation-generated” papers on asbestos and auto mechanics published from 1997 through 2001. In the ensuing five years, 20 such papers were published. All told, 18 of the 26 papers published from 1997 through 2006 were “written by experts primarily associated with defendants, while eight were written by experts who work primarily for plaintiffs … Sponsorship by parties involved in litigation leads to an imbalance in the literature … whoever is willing to fund more studies will have more studies published.”
Craig Biegel, a retired corporate defense lawyer in Oregon who represented plaintiffs later in his career, did an update of the Michaels paper as part of his doctoral dissertation. Biegel searched the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed website using the words “asbestos” and “brake.” He found 27 articles written from 1998 to 2015 by experts known to work for industry; all, he said, showed either no elevated risk of mesothelioma among mechanics or minimal asbestos exposures.
He found 10 articles written by plaintiffs’ experts; all showed an association between the disease and brake work. And he found 11 articles written by foreign scientists, who, as far as he knew, were not involved in litigation. All but one showed an association or documented high asbestos exposures.
“As far as I’m concerned, both sides in a lawsuit do the same thing: They both fund research to obtain evidence for trial, not to advance science,” said Biegel, who once defended asbestos property-damage claims for a Fortune 500 company he declined to identify. “The only difference is that defense counsel have almost unlimited industry money and plaintiffs’ counsel do not want to spend their own money.”
Ford’s knowledge of asbestos
There are several ways microscopic asbestos fibers can be sent airborne and enter the human body during brake work. Over time, friction wears down brake linings and pads — many of which contained asbestos prior to the mid-1990s and some of which still do — and they need to be replaced. A mechanic who opened a brake drum would find it filled with fine dust from the decayed lining. The easiest and most common way to clean it out was to use compressed air, a technique that generates grayish, fiber-bearing clouds that can trigger disease years later if the worker is not properly protected. Many weren’t.
Other opportunities for exposure: filing, grinding or sanding brakes, or cleaning up work areas.
Ford wasn’t the only U.S. automaker to use asbestos brakes. General Motors and Chrysler did as well and found themselves in court as a result. Of the so-called Big Three, however, only Ford continues to get hit with mesothelioma lawsuits; GM and Chrysler are immune by virtue of their 2009 bankruptcies. “The extent of our financial exposure to asbestos litigation remains very difficult to estimate,” Ford said in its 2014 annual report. “Annual payout and defense costs may become significant in the future.”
Documents show Ford was mindful of concerns about asbestos brakes by the late 1960s. An unpublished report by an industrial hygienist with Ford of Britain in 1968 said that while brake linings at the time contained between 40 and 60 percent asbestos, field tests indicated dust that collected in brake drums had a low asbestos content because much of the material decomposed after repeated braking. Consequently, he wrote, there was no evidence that blowing out the drums presented a “significant hazard to health.”
The hygienist added, “It would be helpful, however, for clinical examinations to be made of some repair mechanics with long experience of brake cleaning to confirm this view. It would also be desirable to include in Service manuals a general instruction that inhalation of dust during brake cleaning should be minimised.”
A 1970 Ford memo titled “Asbestos Emissions from Brake Lining Wear” included a bibliography of 40 articles on the cancer-causing effects of asbestos, dating to 1954. And the same 1971 memo bemoaning the $1.25 cost of asbestos-free brakes noted that the state of Illinois was considering banning the use of asbestos in brake linings, beginning with the 1975 model year.
Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole holds up a photo during a news conference in Washington, Thursday, July 27, 1989, showing alleged asbestos violations at the Friction Division Products Inc. plant in Trenton, New Jersey. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration had proposed fining the brake-shoe manufacturing company $2.7 million for exposing workers to potentially deadly levels of asbestos. Bob Daugherty/AP
In 1973, Ford began telling its own employees to use “an industrial type vacuum cleaner” to remove dust from brake drums. “Under no circumstances shall compressed air blowoff be used to clean brakes and brake drums,” the company said. It first told its dealers about what it called “a potential health hazard” in 1975.
In a court filing, Ford said it began putting “caution” labels on packages of asbestos-containing brakes and clutches in 1980; many mesothelioma victims who have sued the company say they never saw such labels. In the same document Ford said it began a “complete phase-out of asbestos-containing brake products” in the 1983 model year, starting with its Ranger pickup truck. A decade later, only Ford Mustangs and certain limousines were equipped with asbestos brakes; some asbestos-containing parts for older model-year vehicles were available until 2001through dealerships and authorized distributors.
That was the year lawyer Grams reached out to toxicologist Paustenbach to gauge his interest in studying mesothelioma in ex-mechanics. “I contacted Dr. Paustenbach because he is one of the leading professional experts in the world,” Grams, who no longer represents Ford, said in a brief phone interview. Grams said he had read none of the recent deposition testimony about the relationship between Ford and its two brake consultants, Cardno ChemRisk and Exponent.
In his curriculum vitae, Paustenbach, president of Cardno ChemRisk, says he is “a board-certified toxicologist and industrial hygienist with nearly 30 years of experience in risk assessment, environmental engineering, ecotoxicology and occupational health.” The 181-page CV shows he has worked on topics ranging from arsenic in wine to heavy metals in hip implants; authored or co-authored 271 peer-reviewed articles; and given 440 presentations at conferences. He is regularly retained as a defense expert in asbestos litigation and other toxic-tort cases.
Paustenbach offered a window into his thinking in a 2009 article written by a University of Virginia business professor.
“Without a doubt, a large percentage of environmental and occupational claims are simply bogus, intended only to extract money from those who society believes can afford to ‘share the wealth,’” Paustenbach told his interviewer. He said, “The vast majority of cases that I’ve seen were fraudulent with respect to the scientific merit and billions upon billions of dollars are redistributed annually inappropriately — at least from a scientific standpoint.
“… Nonetheless,” Paustenbach said, “I am a firm believer in the wisdom of juries and support giving generous awards to those that have been truly harmed by bad corporate behavior.”
In a 2010 letter to Dolores Nuñez Studier, a lawyer in the Ford general counsel’s office, Paustenbach claimed his firm’s papers had “changed the scientific playing field in the courtroom. You know this better than anyone as you have seen the number of plaintiff verdicts [in asbestos cases] decrease and the cost of settlement go down over time.”
In the letter, which surfaced in the discovery phase of a lawsuit, Paustenbach complained that the fee structure in place between Ford and Chemrisk was “out of date” and too low.
“Dolores, currently, you are among our largest clients,” he wrote. “And, Ford has certainly been a loyal supporter. The Big 3 [automakers] were the foundation of the firm during our formative years, and for this reason, I have tried to go the extra mile to satisfy your needs.”
Asked to explain the letter during a 2014 deposition, Paustenbach said he was merely emphasizing to Studier that “we invested in scientific research to answer questions that remained unanswered in the courtroom for many, many years …. And I was pretty proud of that.” He said he didn’t feel it was fair for his firm to lose money “when, in fact, I was so committed to getting the science straight.”
Creating doubt
The World Health Organization estimates that 107,000 people die each year from asbestos-related diseases. “Exposure to asbestos, including chrysotile, causes cancer of the lung, larynx and ovaries, and also mesothelioma (a cancer of the pleural and peritoneal linings) [and] asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs),” the WHO says. “No threshold has been identified for the carcinogenic risk of asbestos, including chrysotile.”
OSHA says, “There is no ‘safe’ level of asbestos exposure for any type of asbestos fiber. Asbestos exposures as short in duration as a few days have caused mesothelioma in humans.”
Taking the WHO and OSHA statements at face value, the case against asbestos would seem to be closed: Even someone with very low exposure to the mineral should worry.
In papers published over the past 15 years, however, scientists with Exponent, Cardno ChemRisk and other consulting firms have questioned whether brake mechanics truly are at heightened risk of developing mesothelioma, the disease that has fueled litigation against Ford and others.
A 2004 Exponent paper funded by Ford, GM and Chrysler, for example, concluded that “employment as a motor vehicle mechanic does not increase the risk of developing mesothelioma.” An update of that paper in 2015 found the same result. Each paper was a meta-analysis — an agglomeration of the results of multiple studies that, taken individually, may be too weak to indicate an effect.
In a deposition last October, Exponent’s Mary Jane Teta, a co-author of both meta-analyses, defended her firm’s findings. “I disagree when they say there is no safe level [of asbestos],” she testified. “I know the level of chrysotile … experienced by vehicle mechanics is safe.”
In his statement to the Center, Paustenbach wrote, “It is implausible that nearly 20 epidemiology studies” – on which he bases his legal opinions – “would conclude that there is no increased risk of mesothelioma for the time period during which brakes contained chrysotile asbestos if that were not the appropriate conclusion.”
The studies Paustenbach cites, however, are fraught with limitations, such as small sample sizes, vague job classifications and lack of exposure data. And not all of them found, as he put it, “no increased risk of mesothelioma” among mechanics. In a 1989 paper, for example, a Danish researcher who studied causes of death among auto mechanics reported finding a single case of mesothelioma among her subjects, where none would have been expected in the general population. As with other cancers, she wrote, this number was “too small to state or rule out a potentially increased risk.”
A co-author of another paper, Kay Teschke of the University of British Columbia, testified in a 2012 deposition that her research was being mischaracterized.
“Vehicle mechanics do many different things in their day; some might work on engines, some might only work on wheel alignment,” Teschke testified. “And when you dilute the [asbestos] exposure in that way, you can’t find the relationship with the job … It doesn’t mean that people in that job are somehow immune to the effects of the exposure … “
Christian Hartley, a lawyer in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, who has represented about 100 mesothelioma victims in brake cases, said the papers used in the defense of such lawsuits “push all this data together that’s totally incomparable. That’s what gets reported in the literature and is used to persuade judges and some experts. It’s very misleading to think we have any kind of real handle on what a typical mechanic has for exposure.”
Dr. David Egilman, a clinical professor of family medicine at Brown University and editor of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, argues that the papers are deceptive by design. Many reanalyze previously published studies of workers described as mechanics who may have had no contact with asbestos brakes, he said. The effect, Egilman said, is to dilute the cancer data so the overall risk appears low.
Egilman, who consults for asbestos plaintiffs, spends much of his time rebutting Paustenbach and other industry-funded researchers. “They can throw a lot of things at the wall and hope something sticks with the jury,” he said. “It forces people like me or other scientists to try to clean up each thing that was thrown at the wall, one at a time. And by the end of the day, that could be confusing to a jury or judge.”
Egilman said the body of work underwritten by Ford and other asbestos defendants is being used to try to deprive sick workers, or their families, of compensation. “Some courts have adopted it as a standard,” he said.
More broadly, the industry-funded papers can confuse the public – and even government experts.
In 2009, the National Cancer Institute published a fact sheet on its website stating there was no evidence brake work was associated with an increased risk of mesothelioma or lung cancer. The 2004 meta-analysis funded by the automakers was cited as a reference.
Dr. Arthur Frank, chair of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at Drexel University, was incredulous.
“What is truly ironic about such a statement is that it is incontrovertible that asbestos, including chrysotile, the type of asbestos found in brakes, does, in fact, cause lung cancer and mesothelioma,” Frank wrote in a letter to the institute’s director obtained by the Center for Public Integrity through a Freedom of Information Act request. “Since we have not banned asbestos in this country, those who might read this statement could well think asbestos brakes are safe, putting at risk both professional and ‘shade tree’ mechanics, and their family members.”
Frank said the meta-analysis cited by the institute was “unreliable and should not serve as the basis for any statement by the NCI.”
Then-NCI Director Dr. John Neiderhuber replied that he had discussed Frank’s critique with an in-house expert who agreed that the language on the website should be amended. The new statement, posted less than two weeks after Frank sent his letter, read that while studies of cancer risks among auto mechanics were limited, “the overall evidence suggests that there is no safe level for asbestos exposure.” The citation of the 2004 paper was deleted.
The brake studies have had global reach. The “chrysotile-is-safe” argument has been used to stave off asbestos bans and preserve markets in developing nations such as India and China, where building materials and other products containing asbestos are widely used.
“The real nefarious part of this research … is that a lot of people who live in those countries are continuing to be exposed under uncontrolled conditions to asbestos,” Egilman said. “That’s the real horror story here.”
Ronnie Stockton’s auto repair shop in Jackson, Tenn. (Courtesy of the Stockton family)
Ronnie and Joyce Stockton. Courtesy of the Stockton family
A Ford loss in Tennessee
While the brake papers and the experts who write them have contributed to defense verdicts in mesothelioma cases, things occasionally go the other way.
Ronnie Stockton operated an auto repair shop 100 feet from his home in Jackson, Tennessee, for 30 years and specialized in brake jobs, often on Ford vehicles. He’d attended training classes in which instructors recommended that paper masks be worn around brake dust but never heard a “full description of what asbestos did,” he said in a recent interview. “We wasn’t warned it could kill you when you swept it up and didn’t wear the mask.”
As it turned out, Stockton’s wife, Joyce, was the one who got sick. She used to help her husband sweep out the shop. She kept the books and washed Ronnie’s dusty clothes. One night in December 2010 she lay down in bed and felt her chest tighten. “I thought I was having a heart attack,” she said. A biopsy confirmed that she had mesothelioma, to that point merely a strange word she’d heard in lawyers’ TV commercials. “I would sit in front of the television trying to learn how to pronounce it, not ever knowing I had the disease,” she said.
The Stocktons sued Ford and went to trial in August. Two Exponent scientists were among the defense experts.
In his closing argument after nearly two weeks of testimony, Ruckdeschel, the Stocktons’ lawyer, said Ford’s experts had “spun the literature” on asbestos. “They’re not taking what the studies say; they’re putting a spin on it.”
If independent research had shown no connection between brake work and mesothelioma, Ruckdeschel said, “they wouldn’t have had to go and pay Exponent to write all the papers to say, ‘Well, we’ve reanalyzed the data, and there really isn’t any evidence.’ ”
Defense lawyer Samuel Tarry urged jurors not to be swayed by the millions of dollars Ford had invested in the papers. It “shouldn’t come as any surprise that over time it costs a lot of money to defend these cases and to publish research where it can be critiqued and criticized and start discussions,” he said. Tarry recounted the testimony of Exponent’s Mark Roberts, who “told you that the majority of mesotheliomas in women are unrelated to asbestos. … He explained that all of us have a background risk, not just for mesothelioma but for any type of cancer …. They can happen naturally. They can happen with an environmental insult.”
After deliberating about two days, the jury returned a $4.65 million verdict in the Stocktons’ favor. It assigned 71 percent of the liability to Ford and 29 percent to brake manufacturer Honeywell, which had been brought into the case on Ford’s motion. Ford has asked for a new trial.
Latisha Strickland was the jury foreman. She’d wanted to assign 100 percent of the blame to Ford but agreed to the 71-29 split to avoid a hung jury.
“I felt ashamed — I had compromised what I thought it should be,” Strickland, a home-school teacher, said in a telephone interview. “You couldn’t give me the Powerball lottery to go through the amount of surgeries this woman [Joyce Stockton] has gone through.”
Strickland said she was especially put off by the 1971 memo showing Ford decided not to spend $1.25 per vehicle to replace front-end asbestos brakes.
Really, this is what we already learned from our grandmothers who lived by ‘waste not want not’. I always smile when I see these ‘revolutionary’ ideas that are really recycled ideas our forbears practiced centuries ago. Recycled now as ‘sustainable’ which also happens to be the globalists’ catch word… a good reminder nevertheless, all that aside … to waste not and want not. Especially right now that the said globalists are paying farmers to plow under their crops. EWR
From foodrevolutionnetwork.org
Summary
There’s a new environmental trend in the food industry, with a funny name: upcycling. Basically, it means taking ingredients that would otherwise have been thrown out, and turning them into or using them in new food products. But are upcycled foods safe? Are they healthy? Can you actually make good food out of those scraps and byproducts? And can it really help save the planet?
Have you ever made bread crumbs out of stale bread, and used them for stuffing? If so, congratulations: You’re an upcycler! Ditto if you’ve turned overripe bananas into banana bread, or vegetable scraps into soup stock.
Your stuffing, banana bread, and soup may have been delicious, but did you also pat yourself on the back for being environmentally conscious and helping fight climate change? By keeping those items in your food supply, you didn’t have to buy more, and you kept them out of landfills.
While many environmental organizations focus on transportation and energy consumption as the main contributors to climate change, the US food system is actually one of the most significant drivers of greenhouse gas emissions. So anything you can do to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet (like eating less or no meat) is a win for the planet.
Upcycling can be simple if you’re doing it in your own kitchen, but it’s also happening at scale, in more and more industrial food settings. Many companies are releasing upcycled food products carrying environmental claims to address growing consumer concerns about planetary health. But upcycling is a fairly new term when applied to food, first gaining popularity in 2021, in the wake of increased concern for the planet that accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic.
So if you see an upcycled certification on a food item, does that mean you should buy it? Is upcycled food good for you or the planet, or just corporate greenwashing? And what are some ways to increase upcycling within your own home economics?
What Does Upcycled Food Mean?
Let’s start by defining the term. Upcycling basically means finding new, higher-value uses for items that would otherwise go to waste. It is distinct from recycling, which is when something is broken down into base materials and then turned into new products (like aluminum cans that are melted and go on to become new aluminum cans, or plastic bottles that become fleece fabric).
Examples of ingredients that can be upcycled include sub-grade produce (i.e., bruised apples, carrots that look like horror movie monsters, and misshapen tomatoes); scraps from food preparation (like onion skins and potato peels); and byproducts from food processing.
The first two categories are pretty straightforward. A tomato that’s too ugly to sell in a grocery store can still taste delicious in a sauce or on a frozen pizza. The Ugly Company turns misshapen fruit into “Hello, I’m Ugly” dried fruit snacks. And discarded scraps can be used as-is in formulations for soup and sauces. But what about byproducts? What do they consist of?
Think of food products that contain ingredients that come from plants — but aren’t the whole plant. For example, fruit juice comes from fruit but leaves behind fiber. Tofu is made from soybeans but consists of just curds. If you’ve ever made tofu at home, you’ve had to deal with (toss or repurpose) the remaining fiber-rich pulp, also known as okara.
So what happens to the parts of those raw ingredients that don’t make it into the product that ends up on the supermarket shelf? At worst, they become garbage in a landfill. At best, until recently, maybe they became compost for farms, ingredients for industrial processes, or feed for livestock.
But these remnants of food production can also live again as ingredients in upcycled foods. The pulp that remains when juice is pressed can add fiber to other foods. The okara left over from making tofu can be turned into veggie patties and other types of faux meat. Upcycling these byproducts can be a way to reduce food waste and help fight climate change by keeping food out of landfills.
Media. It surrounds us. We live our lives in it and through it. We structure our lives around it. But it wasn’t always this way. So how did we get here? And where is the media technology that increasingly governs our lives taking us? This is the story of The Media Matrix.
Two of the most harmful ingredients in processed foods are high fructose corn syrup and soybean oil, whether partially hydrogenated, organic, or made from newer soybean varieties modified in such a way as to not require hydrogenation
Completely unnatural man-made fats created through the partial hydrogenation process cause dysfunction and chaos in your body on a cellular level, and studies have linked trans-fats to health problems ranging from obesity and diabetes to reproductive problems and heart disease
Besides the health hazards related to the trans fats created by the partial hydrogenation process, soybean oil is, in and of itself, NOT a healthy oil
Add to that the fact that the majority of soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically engineered, and as a result saturated with dangerous levels of the herbicide glyphosate, which may have additional health consequences as there are no long term safety studies
When taken together, partially hydrogenated GE soybean oil becomes one of the absolute worst types of oils you can consume
The genetically engineered (GE) variety planted on over 90% of U.S. soy acres is Roundup Ready engineered to survive being doused with otherwise lethal amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (glyphosate). GE soybeans have been found to contain residue levels as high as 17 mg/kg, and malformations in frog and chicken embryos have occurred at just over 2 mg/kg
Processed food is perhaps the most damaging aspect of most people’s diets, contributing to poor health and chronic disease. One of the primary culprits is high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), the dangers of which I touch on in virtually every article I write on diets. The second culprit is partially hydrogenated soybean oil.
These two ingredients, either alone or in combination, can be found in virtually all processed foods, and one can make a compelling argument that the reliance on these two foods is a primary contributing factor for most of the degenerative diseases attacking Americans today.
Part of the problem with partially hydrogenated soybean oil is the trans fat it contains. The other part relates to the health hazards of soy itself. An added hazard factor is the fact that the majority of both corn and soybeans are genetically engineered.
As the negative health effects from trans fats have been identified and recognized, the agricultural and food industry have scrambled to come up with new alternatives. Partially hydrogenated soybean oil has been identified as the main culprit, and for good reason.
Unfortunately, saturated fats are still mistakenly considered unhealthy by many health “experts,” so, rather than embracing truly healthful tropical fats like coconut oil, which is mostly grown outside the U.S., the food industry has instead turned to domestic U.S. alternatives offered by companies like Monsanto, now Bayer (which bought out Monsanto in 2018), which has developed modified soybeans that don’t require hydrogenation.
Why Hydrogenate?
Americans consume more than 16 million metric tons of edible oils annually, and soybean oil accounts for about 11,339 metric tons of it.1 Until Monsanto genetically engineered its seeds to produce plants lower in linolenic acid, about half of it was hydrogenated, as regular soybean oil is too unstable otherwise to be used in food manufacturing.
One of the primary reasons for hydrogenating oil is to prolong its shelf life. Raw butter, for example, is likely to go rancid far quicker than margarine. The process also makes the oil more stable and raises its melting point, which allows it to be used in various types of food processing that uses high temperatures.
Hydrogenated oil2 is made by forcing hydrogen gas into the oil at high pressure. Virtually any oil can be hydrogenated. Margarine is a good example, in which nearly half of the fat content is trans fat.
The process that creates partially hydrogenated oil alters the chemical composition of essential fatty acids, such as reducing or removing linolenic acid, a highly reactive triunsaturated fatty acid, transforming it into the far less reactive linoleic acid, thereby greatly preventing oxidative rancidity when used in cooking.
In the late 1990s, researchers began realizing this chemical alteration might actually have adverse health effects. Since then, scientists have verified this to the point of no dispute.
Be aware that there’s a difference between “fully hydrogenated” and “partially hydrogenated” oils. Whereas partially hydrogenated oil contains trans fat, fully hydrogenated oil does not, as taking the hydrogenation process “all the way” continues the molecular transformation of the fatty acids from trans fat into saturated fatty acids.
Fully hydrogenated soybean oil is still not a healthy choice, however, for reasons I’ll explain below. The following slide presentation explains the technical aspects relating to the hydrogenation process.
The Health Hazards of Trans Fats
The completely unnatural man-made fats created through the partial hydrogenation process cause dysfunction and chaos in your body on a cellular level, and studies have linked trans-fats to:
Cancer, by interfering with enzymes your body uses to fight cancer
Chronic health problems such as obesity, asthma, auto-immune disease, cancer and bone degeneration
Diabetes, by interfering with the insulin receptors in your cell membranes
Heart disease, by clogging your arteries (Among women with underlying coronary heart disease, eating trans-fats increased the risk of sudden cardiac arrest three-fold!)
Decreased immune function, by reducing your immune response
Increased blood levels of low density lipoprotein (LDL), or “bad” cholesterol, while lowering levels of high density lipoprotein (HDL), or “good” cholesterol
Reproductive problems by interfering with enzymes needed to produce sex hormones
Interfering with your body’s use of beneficial omega-3 fats
As usual, it took many years before conventional health recommendations caught up and began warning about the use of trans fats. Not surprisingly, as soon as the FDA notified them that it planned to require food manufacturers to list trans fat content on the label — which ultimately took effect January 1, 2006 — the industry began searching for viable alternatives to appeal to consumers who increasingly began looking for the “no trans fat” designation.
It didn’t take long before Monsanto had tinkered forth a genetically engineered soybean that is low in linolenic acid, which we’ll get to in a moment.
Be aware that some food manufacturers have opted to simply fool buyers — a tactic allowed by the FDA, as any product containing up to half a gram of trans fat per serving can still legally claim to have zero trans fat.3 The trick is to reduce the serving size to bring it below this threshold. At times, this will result in unreasonably tiny serving sizes, so any time you check a label and a serving is something like 10 chips or one cookie, it probably contains trans fats.
The Health Hazards of Soybeans
Besides the health hazards related to the trans fats created by the partial hydrogenation process, soybean oil is, in and of itself, NOT a healthy oil. Add to that the fact that the majority of soy grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered, which may have additional health consequences. When taken together, partially hydrogenated GE soybean oil becomes one of the absolute worst types of oils you can consume.
Years ago, tropical oils, such as palm and coconut oil, were commonly used in American food production. However, these are obviously not grown in the U.S., as with the exception of Hawaii, our climate isn’t tropical enough. Spurred by financial incentives, the industry devised a plan to shift the market from tropical oils to something more “home grown.”
As a result, a movement was created to demonize and vilify tropical oils in order to replace them with domestically grown oils such as corn and soy.
The fat in soybean oil is primarily omega-6 fat. And while we do need some omega-6, it is rare for anyone to be deficient in it, as it is pervasive in our diet. Americans in general consume FAR too much omega-6 in relation to omega-3 fat, primarily due to the excessive amount of omega-6 found in processed foods.
Omega-6 fats are in nearly every animal food and many plants, so deficiencies are very rare. This omega-6 fat is also highly processed and therefore damaged, which compounds the problem of getting so much of it in your diet. The omega-6 found in soybean oil promotes chronic inflammation in your body, which is an underlying issue for virtually all chronic diseases.
What About Organic Soybean Oil?
Even if you were fortunate enough to find organic soybean oil, there are still several significant concerns that make it far from attractive from a health standpoint. Soy in and of itself, organically grown or not, contains a number of problematic components that can wreak havoc with your health, such as:
• Goitrogens — Goitrogens, found in all unfermented soy whether it’s organic or not, are substances that block the synthesis of thyroid hormones and interfere with iodine metabolism, thereby interfering with your thyroid function.
• Isoflavones: genistein and daidzein — Isoflavones are a type of phytoestrogen, which is a plant compound resembling human estrogen, which is why some recommend using soy therapeutically to treat symptoms of menopause. I believe the evidence is highly controversial and doubt it works.
Typically, most of us are exposed to too many estrogen compounds and have a lower testosterone level than ideal, so it really is important to limit exposure to feminizing phytoestrogens. Even more importantly, there’s evidence it may disturb endocrine function, cause infertility and promote breast cancer, which is definitely a significant concern.
• Phytic acid — Phytates (phytic acid) bind to metal ions, preventing the absorption of certain minerals, including calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc — all of which are co-factors for optimal biochemistry in your body. This is particularly problematic for vegetarians, because eating meat reduces the mineral-blocking effects of these phytates.
Sometimes it can be beneficial, especially in postmenopausal women and in most adult men because we tend to have levels of iron that are too high, which can be a very potent oxidant and cause biological stress. However, phytic acid does not necessarily selectively inhibit just iron absorption; it inhibits all minerals. This is very important to remember, as many already suffer from mineral deficiencies from inadequate diets.
The soybean has one of the highest phytate levels of any grain or legume, and the phytates in soy are highly resistant to normal phytate-reducing techniques such as long, slow cooking. Only a long period of fermentation will significantly reduce the phytate content of soybeans.
• Natural toxins known as “anti-nutrients” — Soy also contains other anti-nutritional factors such as saponins, soyatoxin, protease inhibitors, and oxalates. Some of these factors interfere with the enzymes you need to digest protein. While a small amount of anti-nutrients would not likely cause a problem, the amount of soy that many Americans are now eating is extremely high.
• Hemagglutinin — Hemagglutinin is a clot-promoting substance that causes your red blood cells to clump together. These clumped cells are unable to properly absorb and distribute oxygen to your tissues.
Worst of All — Genetically Engineered Soybean Oil
The genetically engineered (GE) variety planted on over 90% of US soy acres is Roundup Ready — engineered to survive being doused with otherwise lethal amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The logic behind Roundup Ready crops such as soy is that you can decrease the cost of production by killing off everything except the actual soy plant.
However, animal studies reveal there may be significant adverse health effects from these GE soybeans, including progressively increased rates of infertility with each passing generation. By the third generation, virtually all the hamsters in one feeding study were found to be infertile. Second-generation hamsters raised on GE soy also had a fivefold higher infant mortality rate.
Are Low-Linolenic Soybeans the Answer?
We now also have other Monsanto-made soy crops to contend with. Responding to the growing demand for healthier diets, Monsanto launched Vistive low-linolenic soybeans in 2005. Most soybeans contain roughly 7% linolenic acid. The new varieties contain 1% to 3%, which reduces the need for hydrogenation.4 As explained by Monsanto:5
“Farmers are not the only beneficiaries of Monsanto’s efforts … Consumers will also benefit from the healthier crops that could result, such as soybeans that are low in linolenic acid. Linolenic acid, a precursor to trans fats, may contribute to cardiovascular disease … Low-linolenic soybeans reduce the need for hydrogenation in food processing, helping to reduce the amount of trans fats in processed foods.”
Yet another soybean variety created by Monsanto is the high stearate soybean, which also has the properties of margarine and shortening without hydrogenation. But are these soybeans any better or safer than either conventional soybeans or Roundup Ready soybeans, even though they don’t have to go through partial hydrogenation, and therefore do not contain trans fat? No one knows.
Another Hazard of GE Soybeans: Glyphosate
I keep stacking health risks upon health risks, and here’s another one: Research has shown that soybean oil from Roundup Ready soy is loaded with glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup — the broad-spectrum herbicide created by Monsanto.
According to a report in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, the highest MRL for glyphosate in food and feed products in the EU is 20 mg/kg. GE soybeans have been found to contain residue levels as high as 17 mg/kg, and malformations in frog and chicken embryos occurred at 2.03 mg/kg.6 That’s 10 times lower than the MRL.
This is an alarming finding because glyphosate is easily one of the world’s most overlooked poisons. Research published in 2010 showed that the chemical, which works by inhibiting an enzyme called EPSP synthase that is necessary for plants to grow, causes birth defects in frogs and chicken embryos at far lower levels than used in agricultural and garden applications.7 The malformations primarily affected the:
Skull
Face
Midline and developing brain
Spinal cord
When applied to crops, glyphosate becomes systemic throughout the plant, so it cannot be washed off. And, once you eat this crop, the glyphosate ends up in your gut where it can decimate your beneficial bacteria. This can wreak havoc with your health, as 80% of your immune system resides in your gut (GALT, or Gut Associated Lymph Tissue) and is dependent on a healthy ratio of good and bad bacteria. Separate research has also uncovered the following effects from glyphosate:
Endocrine disruption
DNA damage
Developmental toxicity
Neurotoxicity
Reproductive toxicity
Cancer
To Avoid Harmful Fats, Ditch Processed Foods
If you want to avoid dangerous fats of all kinds, your best bet is to eliminate processed foods from your diet. From there, use these tips to make sure you’re eating the right fats for your health:
Use organic butter (preferably made from raw milk) instead of margarines and vegetable oil spreads. Butter is a healthy whole food that has received an unwarranted bad rap.
Use coconut oil for cooking. It is far superior to any other cooking oil and is loaded with health benefits.
Be sure to eat raw fats, such as those from avocados, raw dairy products, olive oil, olives, organic pastured eggs and raw nuts, especially macadamia nuts which are relatively low in protein. Also take a high-quality source of animal-based omega-3 fat, such as krill oil.
Following my comprehensive nutrition plan will automatically reduce your trans-fat intake, as it will give you a guide to focus on healthy whole foods instead of processed junk food.
Remember, virtually all processed foods will contain either HFCS (probably made from genetically engineered corn) and/or soybean oil — either in the form of partially hydrogenated soybean oil, which is likely made from GE soybeans, loaded with glyphosate, or from one of the newer soybean varieties that were created such that the y do not need to be hydrogenated. They’re ALL bad news, if you value your health.
( See at end of article for New Year Sale Details…)
Wishing you a Happy New Year Gardening.
Now the weather has settled a bit and temperatures are better (But still a bit chilly at times) Insect pests will multiply rapidly unless you instigate early controls.
If you look at when you are successful in eliminating one adult female insect, that will prevent somewhere between 100 to 300 more of the same pests to invest your plants.
For instance using the yellow sticky white fly traps; hang one near your tomato plants and within a few days the number of whitefly and other flying pest insects caught on the trap’s sticky surface will be dozens.
The sticky traps are worth their weight in gold for pest control.
Plants such as tomatoes, cucumbers, pumpkins, egg plants, capsicum and courgettes will likely have under the older leaves a lot of young pests.
Inspect the oldest leaves looking over and under and if there are a good number of pests remove the leaves from the plant and place in a plastic bag and seal.
This will greatly reduce the pest problem.
There will likely be pests on the upper/newer leaves but a spray of Wallys Super Neem Tree Oil with Wallys Super Pyrethrum will take care of these.
These combined sprays should only be applied only just before dusk for two reasons, Neem Oil in sunlight or with UV on a cloudy day can burn foliage.
Pyrethrum is quickly deactivated by UV/Sunlight and when expose to than will be ineffective within a couple of hours.
Pyrethrum sprayed just before dark will be active all night affecting any pests that come in contact with it. Pyrethrum is a quick knock down affecting the insects nervous system and thus killing it.
Neem Oil on the other hand will last for up to 7 days, slowly decreasing the effectiveness due to sunlight.
Its action is anti-feedent and once a pest insect consumes some Neem it stops eating for ever.
Adding Raingard to the above sprays will prolong the effective life of them and prevent the sprays been diluted by rain or watering.
For control of guava moth and codlin moth the most effective way is to spray the fruit with Wallys Super Neem Tree Oil with Raingard added.
This puts a layer of Neem Oil over the fruit so that when one of the moth’s grubs tries to eat their way into the fruit they are stopped at the first bite. Repeat spraying the fruit with Neem oil and Raingard added every 14 days till harvest.
Leaf hoppers, aphids, caterpillars and mealy bugs are simply controlled with the spray above applied late in the day.
One of the problems is re-infestation from other plants nearby or from over the fence.
Unless the other plants nearby are also sprayed you will never win.
Spider Mites are best controlled by sprays of sulphur or as we used to do in days gone by, Sulphur powder dusted over the plants that have mites.
At this time of the year you may have the cherry slug or pear slug eating holes in the leaves of those trees. If so spray the foliage with Wallys Liquid Copper with Raingard added. The pests cant handle copper and drop off and die.
Mealy bugs live in the root system of plants and the adults are found in the canopy. Spraying the canopy will take them out but not affect the ones in the root system.
Apply Wallys Neem Tree Powder to the top of the mix in containers that are affected and Wallys Neem Tree Granules to the soil in the root zone of plants affected.
Pest problems on citrus trees are very easily fixed by sprinkling Wallys Neem Tree Granules from the trunk to the drip line. Lightly water to get them started and normally within 6 to 8 weeks the citrus tree will be free of pests.
The smell of Neem granules/power is also a great deterrent as the Neem smell camouflages the natural smell of the plant and pests looking for their host plant by smell cannot find them and fly on by.
In glasshouses Wallys Neem Granules on the soil or on top of the mix in containers will reduce insects pests from been lured in from the smell of their host plants.
Little pouches made out of curtain netting and loaded with Neem Granules before hanging in fruit trees that are subjected to codlin and guava moth attack. Used in conjunction with the Neem Oil sprays on the fruit should mean you have plenty of unaffected fruit for your use.
Cats can be a pest in gardens as they use them for their toilets and Wallys Cat Repellent is the most effective way to prevent them fouling gardens or other areas.
Crop cover also called Bug Mesh is the best control of keeping white butterflies off your cabbages and brassicas. Hoops made out of rigid alkathene pipe with crop cover over them.
Weeds are another garden pest and a safe to use spray is Wallys Super Compost Accelerator which you can use to compost weeds where they are growing.
A few years ago a chap from UK phoned me and asked about getting ammonium sulphamate in NZ.
I had not heard of it and asked whats it for.
He told me in England you purchased it, dissolved it in water and sprayed it onto weeds to compost them where they are growing. The weeds think its nitrogen and readily take it in where it completely composts the living weeds and then coverts to nitrogen so no harm on soil life or yourself.
The most effective rate is 200 grams per litre of water sprayed on a sunny day when the soil is on the dry side. Given ideal conditions the weeds are composted very quickly in some cases with an hour.
Available as Wallys Super Compost Accelerator in 600 gram jar (makes 3 litres of full strength spray) or in 2kg jar named Ammonium sulphamate making 10 litres full strength spray.
If used at say 100 grams per litre of water the composting takes longer but on most weeds still very effective. A good choice to use instead of possible cancer causing chemicals.
One of the interesting aspects of the composting is if watered over oxalis foliage and into the soil where the bulb is, it will compost the bulb and bulblets in the soil. Repeat when new oxalis foliage appears till the area is free of the pest weed.
When used at rates of say 60 to 80 grams per litre of water it does not affect some strains of grass but can compost some broad leaf weeds in lawns. Experiment as to what rate it composts weeds but not affect you lawn grasses.
Unlike herbicide lawn weed killers that you cant compost the lawn clipping because of the reside in the cut grass that would effect herbicide sensitive plants (roses, Tomatoes, Beans) there is no problem with ammonium sulphamate composting the clippings which will only speed up the composting.
Wishing you a pest free New Year.
To help to make it so we are offering you a special discount of 20% off the following pest control items:
All Neem Products (Neem Oil, Neem Granules and Powder all sizes) 20% off
Wallys Super Pyrethrum 20% off
Wallys White Fly sticky Traps 20% off
Wallys Super Compost Accelerator 600 grams 20% off
Wallys Ammonium Sulphamate 2kilos 20% off
Wallys Cat Repellent 200 grams 20% off
All the rest of our products except bulk ones 10% off
Place orders on our mail order web site at www.0800466464.co.nz and place in comments ‘PEST SALE’ so I know to do the discounts when I will phone you.
I will apply discounts and Shipping (if any) before I phone you with the total.
Then we either do Credit/Debit card over phone or I will email you bank transfer details.
If in North Island and order comes to $100 after discounts then free shipping.
In South Island $150.00 after discounts for free shipping.
The total does not include bulk items such as 12kilo BioPhos, 13kg Ocean solids and 10 kg Unlocking soil (Freight is always charged on bulk products)
The above offer is valid till 31st January…
The first 25 orders into the web site will receive a free autographed copy of Wallys Glasshouse Gardening for New Zealand. Make your summer free of pests and order soon.
Regards and Happy New Year
Wally Richards
Problems ring me at 0800 466464 Email wallyjr@gardenews.co.nz Web site www.gardenews.co.nz
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Part II of the Act covers a broad range of Civil and Political Rights. As part of the right to life and the security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:
1The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)
2The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment (Section 9)
3The right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without consent (Section 10)
4The right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment (Section 11)
Furthermore, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 guarantees everyone: Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion. This includes the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO ADOPT AND HOLD OPINIONS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE (Section 1)
Potatoes contain vitamins, minerals, starch ….. eating potatoes fight cancer, increase glucose loading capacity, reduce plasma cholesterol and triglyceride levels… Porous and dry soil helps potatoes grow well. Using old plastic paint buckets to grow potatoes is a great idea, it’s easy to make and saves money. You use 2 old plastic paint buckets, 1 of which you cut holes around 4 sides to later harvest potatoes, then punch holes for drainage. Next, you stack the old paint bucket that has been cut on the remaining one. It is better to plant the potatoes in the sand so that they germinate and then plant them in an old paint bucket After 3-4 months you can already harvest the first batch of potatoes and have a delicious and nutritious meal from the potatoes. Follow us: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/5T1TV Twitter: https://twitter.com/namtrinhhau Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/ideas2034/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/john_ideas_…
Brown University researchers conducted a study to determine which micronutrients are best for your heart
They unveiled an up-to-date evidence-based map that quantifies the impact of micronutrients on cardiovascular outcomes
Out of 27 micronutrients, three — omega-3 fats, folate and coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) — came out on top
Omega-3 fats decreased mortality from cardiovascular disease, while also reducing heart attacks and coronary heart disease events
Folic acid, the synthetic version of folate, or vitamin B9, reduced stroke risk, while CoQ10 decreased all-cause mortality events
Most, but not all, of the micronutrients studied showed “moderate- to high-quality evidence” of reducing risk factors for cardiovascular disease
Heart disease is the No. 1 cause of death in the U.S., killing one person every 34 seconds.1 Your diet plays a prominent role in your heart health, but the role of individual micronutrients continues to be debated. Brown University researchers conducted a study to determine which micronutrients are best for your heart.2
They unveiled an up-to-date evidence-based map that quantifies the impact of micronutrients on cardiovascular outcomes. Out of 27 micronutrients, three — omega-3 fats, folate and coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) — came out on top.
Micronutrients Benefit Cardiometabolic Health
Micronutrients are vitamins and minerals that your body needs to function optimally. Deficiencies in micronutrients can lead to a range of acute and chronic conditions. In terms of heart health, Brown University researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis involving 884 trials. The study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, evaluated 27 types of micronutrients used by 883,627 participants.3
“For the first time, we developed a comprehensive, evidence-based integrative map to characterize and quantify micronutrient supplements’ potential effects on cardiometabolic outcomes,” study author Dr. Simin Liu, professor of epidemiology and medicine at Brown University, said in a news release. “Our study highlights the importance of micronutrient diversity and the balance of health benefits and risks.”4
Most, but not all, of the micronutrients showed “moderate- to high-quality evidence” of reducing risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Those that were beneficial included:5
Folic acid (folate)
Vitamin D
Magnesium
Zinc
Alpha-lipoic acid
Coenzyme Q10
Melatonin
Catechin
Curcumin
Flavanol
Genistein
Quercetin
The study was unique in that it took a comprehensive look at micronutrient supplementation, including phytochemicals and antioxidants. Liu explained:6
“Research on micronutrient supplementation has mainly focused on the health effects of a single or a few vitamins and minerals. We decided to take a comprehensive and systematic approach to evaluate all the publicly available and accessible studies reporting all micronutrients, including phytochemicals and antioxidant supplements and their effects on cardiovascular risk factors as well as multiple cardiovascular diseases.”
3 Micronutrients to Support Heart Health
While beta carotene supplementation increased all-cause mortality, omega-3 fats, folate and CoQ10 were highly protective. Here are more details about how these important micronutrients affect your heart health.
1. Omega-3s — The study found omega-3 fats decreased mortality from cardiovascular disease, while also reducing heart attacks and coronary heart disease events.7 This mirrors previous studies, which have also found beneficial effects of omega-3s on heart health. Omega-3 fats derived from krill oil, for instance, have been found to reduce triglyceride levels and help reduce cardiovascular risk.8
Further, people with Type 2 diabetes who used omega-3 supplements had a lower incidence of hospitalization with heart failure — a form of heart disease in which the heart experiences ventricular dysfunction — in another study.9
An omega-3 index test is one of the most important annual health screens that everyone needs, and it’s a more important predictor of your heart disease risk than your cholesterol levels. Even research supported by the National Institutes of Health suggests an omega-3 test is a good predictor of overall health and all-cause mortality.10,11
That study measured the omega-3 index in 2,500 participants and found those with the highest omega-3 index had lower risks of heart problems and lower total mortality. The omega-3 index measures of the amount of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in the membranes of your red blood cells (RBC). Your index is expressed as a percent of your total RBC fatty acids.
The omega-3 index has been validated as a stable, long-term marker of your omega-3 status, and it reflects your tissue levels of EPA and DHA. An omega-3 index over 8% is associated with the lowest risk of death from heart disease, while an index below 4% places you at the highest risk of heart disease-related mortality.
The ideal sources for EPA and DHA include cold-water fatty fish, like wild-caught Alaskan salmon, sardines, herring and anchovies. If you do not eat these fish on a regular basis, consider taking a krill oil supplement.
In addition, be aware that your omega-6 to omega-3 ratio should be about 1-to-1 or possibly up to 4-to-1, but most Americans consume far too many omega-6 fats and not enough omega-3. For optimal heart health, in addition to increasing your omega-3, it’s important to cut down on industrially processed seeds oils, often referred to as “vegetable oils,” found in most processed foods.
2. Folate — The Journal of the American College of Cardiology study revealed that folic acid reduced stroke risk.12 Folic acid is the synthetic version of folate, or vitamin B9, and it’s the most important dietary determinant of homocysteine. Elevated levels of homocysteine (Hcy) are a risk factor for coronary artery disease and are found in most patients with vascular disease.13 According to a literature review published in Advances in Therapy:14
“Several mechanisms have been proposed for Hcy’s pathogenesis related to vascular disease. Hcy can cause endothelial injury, dysfunction of DNA, proliferation of smooth muscle cells, oxidative stress, decreased function of glutathione peroxidase, impaired nitric oxide synthase, and inflammation.”
Evidence suggests that daily folic acid supplementation lowers homocysteine levels. “In fact, it has been shown that folic acid supplementation of 0.5 to 5.0 mg can lower Hcy levels by 25% and, thus, may decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease … Given that folic acid is cheap and effective, this should be a viable option for patients with high-risk for cardiovascular adverse events,” the researchers explained.15
In an animal study, folic acid was also found to prevent age-related structure changes and dysfunction of the heart that may lead to heart failure.16 It reduced cellular senescence, a hallmark of aging. The best way to increase your levels of this important micronutrient is to eat foods rich in natural folate, such as asparagus, avocados, Brussels sprouts, broccoli and spinach.
3. CoQ10 — CoQ10 decreased all-cause mortality events, according to the Journal of the American College of Cardiology study.17 Ubiquinol — the reduced, electron-rich form of CoQ10 that your body produces naturally — plays an important role in the electron transport chain of your mitochondria, where it facilitates the conversion of energy substrates and oxygen into the biological energy (adenosine triphosphate, or ATP) needed by your cells for life, repair and regeneration.
It’s a fat-soluble antioxidant, meaning it works in the fat portions of your body, such as your cell membranes, where it mops up potentially harmful byproducts of metabolism known as reactive oxygen species (ROS). As such, ubiquinol and CoQ10 supplements help protect your mitochondrial membranes from oxidative damage.
Many conditions, including heart disease, appear to be rooted in mitochondrial dysfunction.18 CoQ10 is used by every cell in your body, but especially your heart cells. Cardiac muscle cells have about 5,000 mitochondria per cell.19 For further comparison, mitochondria make up about 35% of the volume of cardiac tissue and only 3% to 8% of the volume of skeletal muscle tissue.20
In other research, CoQ10 has been found to help improve atrial fibrillation (AFib).21 AFib is an abnormal, often rapid, heart rhythm that occurs when the atria, your heart’s upper chambers, beat out of sync with the ventricles, the heart’s lower chambers. It’s a common symptom in those with heart failure or heart disease. In addition, CoQ10 influences several other aspects of heart health, including:
High blood pressure — CoQ10 acts directly on your endothelium, dilating your blood vessels and lowering blood pressure.22,23 CoQ10 also decreases aldosterone, a hormone that makes you retain salt and water.24,25 When aldosterone goes down, excess salt and water are excreted through your kidneys, often causing your blood pressure to go down.
Systemic inflammation — Supplementing with 60 milligrams (mg) to 500 mg of CoQ10 for eight to 12 weeks can significantly reduce tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), IL-6 and C-reactive protein (CRP);26,27 three measures of widespread inflammation.
Stroke — Systemic inflammation, oxidative stress and nerve cell damage play a role in the development of stroke. Research suggests supplementing with CoQ10 can reduce ischemic lesions and improve outcomes in patients who have been treated with a statin drug after having a stroke (statins reduce CoQ10 levels in your body).28
Your body can naturally make CoQ10, but genetic alterations in metabolism, poor diet, oxidative stress, chronic conditions and aging can all interfere with CoQ10 production and lead to CoQ10 deficiency. Statin drugs can also deplete CoQ10.
Ubiquinol production ramps up from early childhood until your mid- to late 20s. By the time you hit 30, it begins to decline.29 Young people are able to use CoQ10 supplements quite well, but older people do better with ubiquinol, as it’s more readily absorbed.
A Personalized Approach Is Best
There’s no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to supporting your heart health. Indeed, the featured study researchers noted that “an optimal nutritional strategy to promote cardiometabolic health will likely involve personalized combinations of these nutrients.”30
However, healthy diet, exercise, stress reduction and heart-based connections — i.e., strong and positive relationships — are key to heart and overall health. As mentioned, I also believe an omega-3 index test is one of the most important annual health screenings you can receive.
GrassrootsHealth makes testing easy through its D*Action+Omega-3 consumer-sponsored research project.31 You can find the GrassrootsHealth omega-3 index test kit on the GrassrootsHealth website.32
Note: Due to censorship of Dr Mercola’s articles he archives them to paid sub soon after publishing. I’ve therefore published this in its entirety however you may find the source link will no longer work. EWR
Story at-a-glance
Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) cause massive mitochondrial dysfunction, thus raising the risk for, and worsening, chronic and degenerative diseases
A perfect storm of DNA and cellular protein and membrane destruction is created when you aren’t burning fat for fuel (which creates excess superoxide) and then get exposed to EMFs
By creating doubt and controversy, the wireless industry effectively prevents the public from knowing the truth and demanding safer products. Another wireless industry strategy that prevents the problem from becoming public knowledge is the capturing of our federal regulatory agencies
Elon Musk’s Starlink project, which was slated to deploy up to 42,000 satellites into orbit around the earth, will blanket the entire planet with 5G internet frequencies. You won’t be able to escape it
Based on the studies already done on previous generations of wireless, we know it’s harmful, and 5G is only going to make matters worse, as it will dramatically increase our exposures
I was recently interviewed by Siim Land about my new book, “EMF*D,” described by Siim as “the most comprehensive guide … to everything you need to know about EMF.”
In it, I explain what electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are, the different types of EMFs you’re exposed to, the harms associated with exposure, the concerns surrounding 5G and, ultimately, how to protect yourself and limit your exposure.
As I explain in the interview, the thing that catalyzed me to write “EMF*D” was my deep appreciation of the impact of mitochondrial function in health and disease. Once I realized how EMFs impact mitochondrial function — because it’s very clear that EMF causes massive mitochondrial dysfunction — the danger our wireless society poses became very clear to me.
I also read a study1 stressing the importance of mitochondrial numbers for improving senescent cells — cells that are, in a manner of speaking, “senile” and have stopped reproducing properly. Instead, senescent cells produce inflammation, contributing to old age and, ultimately, death.
The fewer mitochondria you have, and the more dysfunctional they are, the faster you’ll age and the more prone you’ll be to chronic degenerative disease. By inducing mitochondrial dysfunction, our wireless world may well be driving us all into an early grave.
Cellphone Industry Hides Truth by Manufacturing Doubt
Considering the research data now available, you’d think everyone would understand and accept the fact that EMF is a serious health danger, yet many are still completely in the dark. With “EMF*D,” I hope to help more people understand this biological threat.
In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency EMFs as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”2 Then, in 2018, the U.S. National Toxicology Program published two lifetime exposure studies conclusively showing cellphone exposure causes cancer.
The NTP’s findings were also duplicated by the Italian Ramazzini Institute just a couple of months later. In the wake of these studies, Fiorella Belpoggi, principal investigator and director of the Ramazzini Institute, urged the IARC to upgrade RF-EMF to “probably carcinogenic” or higher.3
Now, just like smoking cigarettes, EMF exposure takes decades before its effects become evident (and even then, the health problem might not be directly linkable to EMF exposure), and this is a significant part of the problem as it allows the telecom industry to — just like the tobacco industry before it — whitewash concerns, manipulate research and prevent proper safety studies from being done.
There’s no doubt cellphone manufacturers are aware that EMFs from cellphones contribute to health problems, though. The evidence has been published for decades, and new research is constantly being added.
However, by downplaying positive findings and saying that findings of harm are inconclusive — in other words, by creating doubt and controversy — they effectively prevent the public from knowing the truth and demanding safer products.
Wireless Industry Is Even Worse Than the Tobacco Industry
Another wireless industry strategy that prevents the problem from becoming public knowledge is the capturing of our federal regulatory agencies, which the tobacco industry wasn’t even capable of.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Surgeon General and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention all warned people about smoking, yet the tobacco industry continued successfully selling cigarettes for another 20 or 30 years. The wireless industry, on the other hand, has captured the federal regulatory agencies, which prevents those warnings from being issued in the first place.
For example, the chief lobbyist for the wireless industry, Tom Wheeler, was appointed by President Obama to be the head of the Federal Communications Commission, which is a most egregious example of the fox guarding the hen house. Not surprisingly, then, in December 2019 the FCC announced they’re going to fund rural 5G deployment to the tune of $9 billion!4
The telecom industry has engaged in a vast and illegal fraud where, for decades, basic telephone rate payers — wire line customers — have funded the deployment of wireless in general, and now 5G in particular, through their phone bills.
This illegal redirection of funds amounts to about $1 trillion over the past 15 years, and without this money, 5G would not have been possible in the first place. Were the wireless industry forced to pay its fair share of infrastructure costs, 5G simply wouldn’t be economically feasible as a consumer product.
What’s so Great About 5G?
What exactly is 5G and why do some people want it? In short, it’s all about improving speed. Compared to 4G, 5G is 100 times faster. On a side note, you can determine what your bandwidth is by pulling up fast.com on your cellphone’s browser. If you’re on 4G, your bandwidth is probably not going to exceed 10 megabytes per second (mb/s). If you’re on 5G, it’s going to be between 500 and 800 mb/s.
So, the primary benefit of 5G is noticeably faster speed. The vast majority of people simply don’t need this kind of bandwidth, but it has great applications for commercial uses such as self-driving cars.
The problem is, 5G may end up making the earth uninhabitable for many who are already struggling with electrosensitivity, and the countless others for whom 5G may prove to be the thing that tips them over the edge into electrohypersensitivity syndrome.
Elon Musk’s Starlink project, which was slated to deploy up to 42,000 satellites into low earth orbit, will blanket the entire planet with 5G internet. You won’t be able to escape it, no matter how far into the wilderness you go.
5G Is a Prescription for Biological Disaster
Then there are the long-term dangers of 5G, which we still do not have a complete picture of. There has not been a single safety study done on 5G. Studies using 2G, 3G and 4G, however, including the NTP and Ramazzini studies, clearly show there’s cause for concern.
5G is more complex, as it uses a variety of frequencies, which makes it a potentially greater threat. The frequency of 4G is typically around 2 to 5 gigahertz (GHz), while 5G will be around 20 to 30 GHz, initially.
Eventually, it may go as high as 80 GHz, which will cause problems for people trying to remediate exposures because there are currently no inexpensive meters that can measure frequencies that high.
Based on the studies already done on previous generations of wireless, we know it’s harmful, and 5G is only going to make matters worse, as it will dramatically increase our exposures. 5G requires what essentially amounts to a mini cellphone tower outside every fifth or sixth house on every block.
We also have studies showing the impact of millimeter waves, which is what 5G is using, on insects, animals and plants, and those hazards are well-documented. So, it doesn’t just pose a problem for human health, but for the ecosystem as a whole.
Martin Pall, Ph.D., wrote an excellent paper explaining how EMFs affect your voltage gated calcium channels (VGCCs) — channels in the outer plasma membrane of your cells. Each VGCC has a voltage sensor, a structure that detects electrical changes across the plasma membrane and opens the channel. EMFs work through the voltage sensor to activate the channel and radically increase intracellular calcium levels into dangerous ranges.
Similar channels are found in most biological life, including animals, insects, plants and trees. So, flooding the planet with these frequencies will undoubtedly have serious biological consequences across the ecosystem. As such, it’s an existential threat to humanity.
One biological consequence is arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat). Other potential consequences include autism and Alzheimer’s. Heart and neurological problems top the list because your heart and brain have the greatest density of VGCCs. Men’s testes also have a very high density of VGCCs and, indeed, we have evidence showing EMFs increase men’s risk of infertility.
Everything points to these frequencies being a prescription for biological disaster, and between skyrocketing autism, Alzheimer’s and infertility rates, how can a society be sustained? It can’t. It will be extinguished.
We Don’t Need Wireless 5G
In reality, we can still get the bandwidth of 5G without 5G wireless. The alternative would be to deploy fiber optic cable. It’s faster, safer and less expensive.
Unfortunately, the money originally set aside to implement nationwide fiber optics was rerouted and illegally used to build the wireless infrastructure instead. This is why a group called The Irregulators5 are now suing the FCC to put a stop to the illegal subsidy to the wireless industry.
Wireline customers paid for an upgrade to fast and safe fiber optic wiring across the nation, but now we’re getting harmful 5G wireless instead. This lawsuit has the potential to alter the telecommunications industry from the ground up, and may be the “weapon” we need to halt to the 5G rollout in the U.S.
The Importance of EMF Avoidance to Protect Your NAD+ Level
Along with practical remediation strategies, “EMF*D” also covers things you can do to protect yourself on a biochemical level. A perfect storm of DNA and cellular protein and membrane destruction is created when you aren’t burning fat for fuel (which creates excess superoxide) and then get exposed to EMFs.
This causes a radical increase in nitric oxide release that nearly instantaneously combines with superoxide to create enormous levels of peroxynitrate, which triggers a cascade of destructive events to your cellular and mitochondrial DNA, membranes and proteins.
Although all biologic damage is of concern, it is the DNA strand breaks that are most concerning as they will lead to a radical increase in inflammation and virtually all degenerative diseases.
The good news is your body has the ability to repair this damaged DNA with a family of enzymes called poly ADP ribose polymerase or PARP It is a very effective repair system and works wonderfully to repair the damage as long as it has enough fuel in the form of NAD+.
The bad news is many of us are running low on this fuel. When excess peroxynitrate activates PARP to repair the DNA damage, it consumes NAD+, and if you run out, you can’t repair the damage. This appears to be a central cause for most of the diseases we now see in the modern world.
Optimizing your NAD+ levels may be the single most important strategy for improving your mitochondrial health. The first step is to reduce NAD+ consumption by the correct diet (low in processed foods and net carbohydrates and higher in healthy fats), along with EMF avoidance, as recent research shows NAD+ levels dramatically drop when exposed to EMFs.
Time restricted eating is also very helpful, as is exercise, both of which are powerful, inexpensive and safe ways to boost your NAD+ level.
Helpful Strategies to Limit EMF Damage
In “EMF*D” I also cover the Nrf2 pathway and the importance of minerals such as magnesium to limit the biological damage caused by EMFs. As explained in this interview, upregulating your Nrf2 pathway activates genes that have powerful antioxidant effects, thus helping protect against EMF damage, while magnesium — which is a natural calcium channel blocker — helps reduce the effects of EMF on your VGCCs.
On a side note, molecular hydrogen tablets are an excellent source of ionic elemental magnesium. Each tablet provides about 80 milligrams of ionic elemental magnesium.
Addressing EMF Pollution — A 21st Century Health Imperative
There’s no doubt in my mind that EMF exposure is an important lifestyle component that needs to be addressed if you’re concerned about your health, which is why I spent three years writing “EMF*D.”
My aim was to create a comprehensive and informative guide, detailing not only the risks, but also what you can do to mitigate unavoidable exposures. If you know or suspect you might already be developing a sensitivity to EMFs (full-blown hypersensitivity can often strike seemingly overnight), mitigating your exposures will be particularly paramount.
Many sufferers become obsessed with finding solutions, as the effects can be severely crippling. My book can be a valuable resource in your quest for relief.
The EMF Experts website6 also lists EMF groups worldwide, to which you can turn with questions, concerns and support. Should you need help remediating your home, consider hiring a trained building biologist to get it done right.
Brian Hoyer, a leading EMF expert7 and a primary consultant for “EMF*D” also has a company called Shielded Healing that can provide a thorough analysis of the EMF exposure in your home, and help you devise a remediation plan.
Time series analysis of New Zealand data supports a relationship between mRNA vaccination and death that is consistent with a German autopsy study.
On 14th December 2022, Medsafe (NZ Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority) released its 46th report into the safety of Covid vaccines entitled “Adverse events following immunisation with COVID-19 vaccines”. The report covered safety signals up to 30th November 2022.
This report contained new advice about the risk of death following mRNA vaccination. Medsafe’s assessment began as follows:
“By chance, some people will experience new illnesses or die from a pre-existing condition shortly after vaccination, especially if they are elderly. Therefore, part of our review process includes comparing natural death rates to observed death rates following vaccination, to determine if there are any specific trends or patterns that might indicate a vaccine safety concern.”
The report comes after months of speculation concerning record levels of excess all cause mortality in New Zealand affecting all ages, currently running at 15% above historical levels.
After dropping the bombshell news, Medsafe goes through an entirely bogus and unscientific process designed to reassure the public that there is nothing to worry about. Medsafe compares the number of deaths reported to CARM (Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring) within 21 days of vaccination to the background rate of deaths from natural causes. In doing so, it omits to mention (but does so elsewhere) that CARM reports are voluntary and massively underreported by an estimated factor of 20 times. As a result there is nothing at all reassuring about this safety report.
Are There Other Reasons to Be Concerned? Yes, Many:
1. Medsafe reports, “There have been no deaths reported for the Vaxzevria or Nuvaxovid vaccines.” So why are they happening after the Pfizer vaccine?
2. Autopsies are not routinely performed in New Zealand following deaths proximate to vaccination. A recently published German study Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination reports 16% of deaths within 20 days of mRNA vaccination exhibit definitive causal symptoms of acute myocarditis, a known adverse effect of Pfizer Covid vaccination. So why is there no concerted effort here in NZ to investigate by routinely performing autopsies?
3. The Ministry of Health has consistently refused/omitted to record vaccine status on death certificates or make CARM reporting mandatory. This makes it very difficult to scientifically and reliably investigate any causal relationship between mRNA vaccination and death or serious illness. On the 17th December 2021 the director of the Covid immunisation programme wrote to me on behalf of Dr. Ashley Bloomfield, Director General of Health, saying “An accurate measurement of all adverse events is not required”.
In the light of today’s Medsafe admission, that’s damning. Incredibly Dr. Bloomfield has just been appointed the inaugural chair of a new public policy impact institute at the University of Auckland, proposing to translate and apply research into policies that directly impact communities—but he doesn’t subscribe to accuracy??? Most people do, especially academics.
4. Medsafe argues that temporal correlation between deaths and vaccination does not prove a causal relationship between them. They, along with epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker, suggest that Covid infection or pre-existing health conditions are more likely to be causally connected to deaths following vaccination. There are in fact other relevant analyses which can determine whether there is a relationship between mRNA vaccination and proximate deaths. Among these, powerful techniques of time series analysis can discover whether deaths are consistently occurring during specific intervals of time after vaccination. This would provide strong support for a causal relationship.
Among the world’s nations, New Zealand is in a unique position to undertake this sort of analysis. In 2021 New Zealand had very few Covid infections (almost none) but the majority of the population were vaccinated over a period of eight months. Therefore deaths recorded during much of 2021 in New Zealand cannot be ascribed to any effect of Covid infection.
Preliminary data from 2021 has been analysed to investigate the proposition that mRNA vaccination resulted in deaths. This shows there is a significant (p=0.045) relationship between number of vaccines administered by week and weekly deaths at a lag of one week. In other words, there is a statistically significant increased chance of dying within a few days of vaccination. Download the study here. Despite the preliminary nature of the data in this study, the findings of this study are consistent with the findings of German autopsies. Therefore there should be more rigorous study of stored data to further test these findings
There are other simple methods to analyse death data. For example taking the date of inoculation for each individual as a notional point in time around which all death data can be assessed for entire cohorts of individuals. This would reveal whether death rates before and after inoculation differ.
5. The time series analysis does not preclude the possibility that other deaths at longer time intervals after an inoculation date may be occurring as a result of mRNA vaccination. Unprecedented rates of all cause mortality suggest this is likely to be the case. Unfortunately, the New Zealand Ministry of Health is not releasing data on causes of hospitalisation by category of illness. There is evidence we have previously reported based on US defence personal data and insurance statistics, and on UK ONS data, indicating that incidence of neurological disorders, cancers, cardiac events, and strokes have increased.
Medsafe’s position on vaccine safety has clearly shifted during the two months since it last published a safety report, but has it realised the importance of more reliable causal assessments? Apparently not. The NZ public is being kept in the dark about vaccine safety as it has been for the last two years. Bland assurances of safety continue without foundation in fact.
Can mRNA Vaccination Be a Trigger Event for Death if You Are Already Sick or Elderly?
The wording of the December 14th Medsafe warning is strange and ambiguous: “..some people will experience new illnesses or die from a pre-existing condition shortly after vaccination, especially if they are elderly”. So are the elderly especially liable to die after vaccination because of vaccination or because they are elderly? We aren’t told.
Aside from the obviously elevated rates of excess all cause deaths, anecdotal reports from rest home staff suggest this is the case. Emergency vehicles and helicopters are answering more frequent calls. Hospitals are overwhelmed and unable to cope. Whistleblowers among nurses are talking about overflowing cardiac wards. A top UK cardiologist has suggested that the evidence of harm is overwhelming and irrefutable. Funeral home workers in New Zealand and overseas have spoken publicly about strange rubbery clots in arteries which have been confirmed by experienced pathologists in the USA. Statistically improbable increases in life insurance claims data have been noted. Sudden unexplained deaths have a high profile in the media. The message is consistent—something unprecedented and very concerning is going on.
Despite having multiple sources of data and methods of analysis available to it. Medsafe has relied for two years on a single obviously flawed method of comparing CARM data to background rates, despite admitting CARM data is underreported. How strange is that? This deficiency is fatal to Medsafe’s claims of safety. It is scientifically unjustifiable and it wouldn’t meet publication criteria.
There is no possible justification for omitting to use more reliable forms of causal investigation. Medsafe has avoided public accountability by refusing to debate the issues publicly, omitting publication of key health data, massaging published data, and unforgivably accusing critics of spreading disinformation. These approaches are worthy of a dictatorship but not a modern democracy.
Note: Due to censorship of Dr Mercola’s articles he archives them to paid sub soon after publishing. I’ve therefore published this in its entirety however you may find the source link will no longer work. EWR
Story at-a-glance
Blue light damages retinal cells responsible for vision color and clarity, but red and near infrared light help recharge retinal mitochondria and improve sight
The retina has the highest energy demand of any part of the body. A lack of red and near infrared light from the sun and overexposure to blue light from LED and digital devices can speed retinal aging
Artificial light at the wrong time of the day also impacts sleep quality, which is associated with obesity, heart attack, high blood pressure and depression
You can lower your exposure to blue light at home by replacing LED with incandescent bulbs and turning down the blue light in your digital devices at 7 p.m. when the sun naturally sets
Vision is one of your five senses and protecting it has an impact on your overall physical and mental health. Your eye is a complex organ that takes in light bouncing off objects in the environment. Structures in the eye bend and change shape so your brain can interpret your surroundings.
Light first enters through the cornea, which is a clear covering over the eye.1 This functions to protect the eye and to bend the light so it can pass through the dark pupil at the center of your iris, the colored part of the eye. The iris gets larger or smaller, which makes the pupil look smaller or larger, to regulate the amount of light.
Light passes through the lens, which also bends the rays to focus them on the retina at the back of the eye. This structure has tiny light-sensitive nerve cells called cones and rods. The cones are sensitive to color and are in the center of the retina, near the macula.
The rods are sensitive to light intensity and don’t register color.2 They are located outside the macula, extending to the edge of the retina. The cones and rods convert the light into electrical impulses and send them to the brain where your brain perceives an image.
What Causes Visual Loss?
Visual loss or impairment has an impact on a person’s mental and physical well-being. The American Academy of Ophthalmology writes that those with a visual impairment experience a higher risk of some conditions such as depression, social withdrawal and accidents.3
People with vision loss may also experience a higher risk of chronic health conditions such as high blood pressure, heart disease, kidney failure, hearing loss and arthritis.4 As the population ages, the number who have visual impairment or blindness also rises.
The primary causes of visual impairment appear to increase with age. These include cataracts, age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy.5 Loss of vision at night may not get as much attention as other eye conditions, but it is commonly found in those who are older.
In some, difficulty seeing at night starts around age 40 and may be associated with older individuals who are involved in car crashes.6 There are several reasons people may have impaired night vision, including age-related changes and eye disease:7,8
Smaller pupils — With aging the muscles that control the pupil, the area that allows light into the eye, do not react as quickly or may not be as strong. If the pupil doesn’t dilate enough, you don’t have enough light to see. This makes adapting to seeing out the windshield and back to a brightly-lit car dashboard difficult.
Eye lens — With age, the lens of the eye stiffens and may get less transparent. This doesn’t let enough light pass through, which you experience especially at night.
Rods — The rods in the retina are necessary for sight but may be lost with aging.
Nearsightedness — This may make it hard to see down the road at night while driving.
Medications — Some can slow your pupil’s ability to adapt to changing light conditions.
Nutritional deficiency — A vitamin A deficiency can impair your night vision.
Retinitis pigmentosa — This is a hereditary disease that causes permanent impairment of night vision and peripheral vision. Eventually it can cause significant visual loss in normal light conditions.
Recharge Your Eyes With Long Wavelength Light
In the first-of-its-kind research in humans, a team from University College London led by Glen Jeffery was able to improve declining eyesight using simple light therapy.9 In this short video he describes the interaction between red light and mitochondria, which is the basis for sight improvement.
The researchers were aiming at improving the vision of the large number of seniors who suffer from physical decline and impaired eyesight. In 2020, the team wrote there were 12 million people in the U.K. over age 65, which is expected to increase by another 8 million by 2050.
They estimate all will experience some degree of impairment from aging of the cones and rods in the retina. In the video, Jeffery explains the retina of the eye has a greater energy demand and more mitochondria than other tissues in the body, including the heart. As reported in a press release, he said:10
“As you age your visual system declines significantly, particularly once over 40. Your retinal sensitivity and your colour vision are both gradually undermined, and with an ageing population, this is an increasingly important issue. To try to stem or reverse this decline, we sought to reboot the retina’s ageing cells with short bursts of longwave light.”
The team recruited 24 people ages 28 to 72 years. Each of them was given a device that emitted a red light at 670 nanometers. As Jeffery commented, the mitochondria have the ability to absorb light in longer wavelengths, from 650 nm to 1,000 nm to raise energy production.
However, when the wavelength is above 670 the light is difficult for the human eye to see, which could potentially impact compliance. As a result of the high energy demands, the mitochondria in the retina age faster than other areas of the body. This causes a significant reduction in function.11 The participants took a device home, which they used for three minutes each day for two weeks.
Their rod and cone sensitivity were tested before and after the intervention. They found participants younger than 40 exhibited no difference in sensitivity. However, those older than 40 showed some significant improvement in color contrast and the ability to see in low light. Jeffery concluded:12
“Our study shows that it is possible to significantly improve vision that has declined in aged individuals using simple brief exposures to light wavelengths that recharge the energy system that has declined in the retina cells, rather like re-charging a battery.
The technology is simple and very safe, using a deep red light of a specific wavelength, that is absorbed by mitochondria in the retina that supply energy for cellular function. Our devices cost about £12 to make, so the technology is highly accessible to members of the public.”
Indoor Living Raises Risk of Light Pollution
It’s important to remember that not all light is the same. In fact, artificial light at the wrong time of the day can significantly impact sleep quality. It’s called light pollution and it can result in sleep deprivation that ultimately affects your immune system. There is a steep cost to sleep deprivation, including obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart attack and depression.13
One of the side effects of spending hours indoors is a lack of exposure to the sun. The bright light emitted by LED lights and streetlamps is not full-spectrum: Full-spectrum light comes from the sun.14
Hormones and bodily functions operate on a circadian rhythm, which is attached to a 24-hour day-night cycle and light. Your hormones that regulate digestion, metabolism and sleep are affected by your circadian rhythm.15 Ultimately, your circadian rhythm is affected by exposure to sunlight.
For example, the hormone melatonin should rise at night to encourage quality sleep.16 Exposure to bright sunlight in the morning helps regulate the release of melatonin and affects your sleep cycle. In a recent preprint paper, researchers suggest that lockdowns instigated by COVID-19 have mitigated the protective role of ultraviolet light from the sun by up to 95%.17
There is a link between blue light and circadian rhythms.18 The sun provides a full spectrum of light, and thus includes blue light. A reduction in the intensity of sunlight during the winter months may suppress melatonin and result in feelings of listlessness, sleepiness and in some, depression.
As well as reducing your exposure to full spectrum light, including infrared light from 650 nm to 1000 nm, spending hours indoors increases your exposure to blue light. Although blue light in the early hours of the day helps shut off melatonin production, continued exposure after sunset has deleterious effects on health.
Red Light, Blue Light
With the production and distribution of energy-efficient LED lights, many are exposed for longer hours to blue light without a balance of red or near-infrared light. For this reason, incandescent lights are safer as they emit the longer wavelength red and near-infrared light and only emit a bit of blue.19
The damage blue light does to the retina has been known for years. In one study published in 1995, researchers wrote, “Exposure of the eye to intense light, particularly blue light, can cause irreversible, oxygen dependent damage to the retina.”20
More recently, data from a study involving animals has suggested that blue light increases retinal damage and apoptotic cell death. In this study, the damage induced greater cone cell death than rod cell death.21 The blue light emitted by LED lights is the main component scientists are concerned with regarding vision and the health of the retina.
Experts find that the blue light component in energy-efficient LED lights is “the major cause of retinal damage,” inducing “oxidative stress and retinal injury” as well as “photoreceptor death by necrosis and apoptosis.”22
How to Use Light at Home
Researchers from Oregon State University in collaboration with The Ohio State University found prolonged exposure to blue light may also affect your brain, even when blue light is not shining through your eyes.23
There are some important steps you can take to protect your eyesight and overall health. While it’s important to get blue light first thing in the morning to shut off melatonin production, it’s just as important to reduce exposure after 7 p.m. when the sun naturally begins to set.
There are several ways to accomplish this, depending on your personal preferences. Many digital devices have software that can reduce the blue light emitted by the screen. When you do this on all electronic devices and you replace all LED lights with incandescent bulbs, you won’t need blue blocking sunglasses indoors.
However, if you don’t have control over lighting, then it’s important to strongly consider using blue-blocking glasses after 7 p.m. This will help regulate your internal clock and reduce damage to your eyes.
Outdoor street lighting and alarm clocks are other ways you’re exposed to light after dark. The quality of sleep you get is linked to resting in total darkness. Consider removing all light-emitting devices and using a sleep mask and room-darkening blinds.
On the other hand, during the daylight hours, it’s important to get sensible sun exposure for eye health and to help raise your vitamin D production. If you find it difficult to fall asleep and stay asleep, you may need to make a few more changes using strategies I suggest in “Top 33 Tips to Optimize Your Sleep Routine.”
Not to spoil your holiday season, but a good reminder of how the system actually works against you. Being corporately controlled of course it’s inevitable. So is emphasized the need to be proactive. It was by falling ill that I suddenly had time to explore the vagaries and dishonesty of the corporation that is in reality, psychopathic by nature. Don’t believe me? Watch The Corporation movie. That was my biggest eye opener. They even target your babies. A familiar theme currently. As a social sciences student in the ’80s, the University I attended told us that ‘in the future’ corporations would control governments. Predictive programming at its finest! See how well Unis are funded by the corporates. Search ‘Otago University, Bill Gates’ and see for yourself … EWR
Doctors predict that by 2030, half of the world’s population will be overweight or obese. An epidemic of obesity is causing a rapid rise in diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. It’s becoming the biggest health challenge worldwide. Why has no country managed to stop this epidemic? The food industry and government authorities say it’s due to a lack of individual self-discipline. Is this true? Or is it the result of collective failure — a symptom of a liberal society that abhors obesity, yet produces people who are overweight. Is society itself to blame for this situation? Around the world, politicians, priests, doctors, and average people are standing up to multinational food corporations. They want to take back control of their nutrition and their bodies — and they’re using the law, scientific evidence, and political activism to correct the claim that people who are obese have only themselves to blame. These critics focus on sugary drinks that can be as addictive as some hard drugs; misleading advertising directed at children and low-income people; governments that turn a blind eye to junk-food companies; and lobbying that pushes the limits of legality. These people say that a “hostile takeover” of our food has been underway for four decades, and they’re demanding new legislation to put a stop to it. This documentary investigates how Chile is leading the way in this struggle. Which country will be the next to confront the big food corporations in the name of public health?
Should you have suspiciously acting neighbours, associates or whomever, the NZ Secret Service has compiled a little booklet for you to peruse in deciding whether they should be reported to the authorities or not. This will make NZ a safer place to live.
Note this website does not support or promote violence in any way.
Below is an article also on topic. If you go to this link also you will see multiple other articles to read, each digging deeper into specific health benefits … heart, memory, longevity and more. EWR
Here it is Christmas day and I am writing this short weekly article today because I was too busy yesterday mowing lawns and tidying up gardens for Christmas.
So I hope you are having a pleasant day and a chance to hopefully forget the woes of the past year.
As the Chinese say, ‘Have an Interesting Life’ which some take as a curse because an interesting life is not an easy one.
It is full of problems as well as good times which in comparison a life without the ups and downs is very boring.
As us gardeners know, problems are just challenges in the garden, things to resolve and sort out.
Having successes against the odds is wonderful and very satisfying.
I always get a thrill when seeds I have sown burst forth as young seedlings out of the growing media.
Life has been born anew.
As I wrote a week or two ago this summer so far has been dismal with too many cloudy skies and too few blue skies.
I see today in Marton we have some blue in between the clouds so that means some direct sunlight.
That will make the farmers & commercial growers happy as they are looking for growth.
I am happy to say that my first vine ripened tomatoes were picked this week and were delicious.
That’s a lot better than paying between $7.99 and $8.49 a kilo from Supermarkets.
I have been eating and giving away cucumbers both telegraph and green types which I see are selling for $2.00 to $2.90 each.
Lettuce at this time of the year should be about a dollar each but no they are closer to $4.00 each.
So hopefully if you have been following my articles over the last period of time you will also be enjoying your own salad crops. More possibly so if you have a glasshouse.
This now is my third year of growing garlic and no garlic rust thanks to the cell strengthening products.
I scoured seed/cloves from about 3-4 places for planting and the best certainly was the big fat cloves which I can feel in the soil have produced good size bulbs.
A few have started to flower so cut the flower spike off so all the goodness will go into the bulbs.
No hurry to lift them yet so will leave until the tops show signs of dying back.
Sprays weekly with Magic Botanic Liquid (MBL) with Mycorrcin added will help produce better crops on all vegetables.
I smiled the other night about the shortage of strawberries this time of the year that I saw on the News.
I have big beautiful strawberries rich in flavour available as a dessert every couple of nights of the week.
That’s thanks to regular sprays of Mycorrcin and MBL along with an occasional feed of My Secret Strawberry food.
I have to go harvest a few shortly to put on the pavlova.
When we purchased this place in Marton a few years ago I was so surprised that an old 1920 house on a quarter acre section did not have one fruit tree, not even a standard (must have) lemon tree.
Well on last count I have now 36 fruit trees and two brambles.
(Some were in 100 litre drums from Palmerston North) moved here and are still sitting happily in their drums which makes them easy to move around. In the open ground I added more varieties of fruit trees and ones in their third season are now producing nice small crops.
I will have to keep them under control in time to come; so there is not a jungle of fruit trees.
On the back by the rear fence is a giant macrocarpa, must be many years old and along the same fence line on the other side are some ornamental deciduous trees which send up suckers all over the place.
This means that no open ground vegetable gardens as they would be robbed of goodness during first season.
Instead all vegetable gardens are raised and on concrete to prevent robber roots.
My challenge this year is to have as much vegetables growing all year round to ensure food safety as much as possible, plus far better taste and healthier to eat than the chemically grown expensive vegetables from the supermarket.
Also I will once again try to establish a passion fruit vine, this time in a lean to glasshouse I have.
It has been about 50 years since I last had a successful passion fruit vine growing in a place I lived.
Not that I don’t try every so often.
Mind you 50 years ago in Palmerston North it was a different world with hot blue sky summers and frosty cold winters.
I saw on social media this week a picture of young children in the middle of the road somewhere in suburbia on trikes, bikes and on foot playing from back in 1950’s and the caption said : “We had no idea how good we had it and no clue that we were the last ones.”
Never a truer Analogy of then and now.
It is hard to believe how much things have changed and obviously to us that have lived in the best times that the now is like a different planet and people.
Where did this thing called Woke come from?
I remember back when people used to dance such as foxtrots and rock and Roll now the dancing looks like semaphore signaling?
I suppose they might have seen a clip of young people doing what was called ‘Hand Jive’ while sitting around a dance hall. I was thinking back recently to a house in Domain Street where I grew up in, it was a little cottage house on a very small section with only enough room for me to have a small vegetable garden.
But in the house there was a coal range which supplied hot water, heating with cooking top and oven.
All of that for most of the day from a shovel full of clean burning cheap coal.
The best scones ever came out of that oven and a kettle or soup would be kept hot on the steel top.
The house has long gone and along with neighboring homes for a motel complex now.
Enough reminiscing instead keep gardening and hoping that the year ahead will be an improvement on recent past.
“Where there’s life there’s hope” is attributed to J.R.R. Tolkien whose character Samwise Gamgee declared it in The Lord of the Rings. In another of Tolkien’s famous quotes, “A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities.”
Merry Christmas and I will catch up with you before the New Year.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Part II of the Act covers a broad range of Civil and Political Rights. As part of the right to life and the security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:
1The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)
2The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment (Section 9)
3The right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without consent (Section 10)
4The right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment (Section 11)
Furthermore, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 guarantees everyone: Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion. This includes the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO ADOPT AND HOLD OPINIONS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE (Section 1)
Comments by Brian Shilhavy Editor, Health Impact News
As our regular readers know, Health Impact News is committed to publishing the truth and exposing evil, wherever that path leads, as I own 100% of the Health Impact News network with no debt and no investors. I also do not derive any personal income from Health Impact News, as my income comes from my online store, Healthy Traditions.
Therefore, we can publish anything we want, and we can afford to lose readers who are offended by the Truth. Of course that has been happening in mass since 2020, not only because of Big Tech censorship, but also because we do not support either political party in the United States, and therefore expose evil from both the Right and Left political spectrum. This has led to many on the Right, especially Trump supporters, to attack us and stop reading our articles.
When it comes to publishing video content, since YouTube has no longer been an option for some time now, we have found Bitchute to be the best platform, mainly because we can turn off comments there to silence the trolls, mostly from the Right, and because Bitchute doesn’t seem to take a political position one way or another. When it comes to searching for videos that may be banned elsewhere, Bitchute is the best platform, by far. Based out of the U.K., Bitchute has been our safest place to publish video content.
Note: Due to censorship of Dr Mercola’s articles he archives them to paid sub soon after publishing. I’ve therefore published this in its entirety however you may find the source link will no longer work. EWR
From Dr Mercola
Story at-a-glance
The globalist technocrats are intent on monopolizing the entire food supply. They already have a monopoly on grains and have made headway in genetically engineered (GE) seafood. The next targets include lab-grown meats and dairy substitutes
Biomilq, made from cultured breast tissue, will be marketed as a breast milk substitute
The company Helaina is working on creating glycoproteins “identical to those found in breast milk.” Those proteins can then be added to a variety of infant formulas, seniors’ nutrition and, eventually, all sorts of foods
The justification for creating synthetic milk substitutes is, of course, preventing and reversing “climate change.” That’s the justification used to sell virtually all fake foods. In reality, however, they will perpetuate and worsen adverse effects on the environment
Lab-created foods are ultraprocessed and therefore qualify as junk food. Fake meat and dairy cannot replace the complex mix of nutrients found in grass fed beef and dairy, and it’s likely that consuming ultraprocessed meat and milk alternatives may lead to many of the same health issues that are caused by a processed food diet
The starting ingredients in fermented synthetic biology products are cheap sugars derived from GE corn and soy. All GE crops are grown in environmentally destructive monocultures, and use loads of herbicides such as glyphosate, pesticides like neonicotinoids and synthetic fertilizers. As a result, they’re loaded with chemical residues that end up in the final product
The globalist technocrats are intent on monopolizing the entire food supply. They already have a monopoly on genetically engineered (GE) grains and have made headway in GE seafood. The next targets are lab-grown meats and dairy substitutes. There’s even a lab-made breast milk alternative on the way called Biomilq, which is made from cultured breast tissue.1
Another company, Helaina, aims to create glycoproteins “identical to those found in breast milk,”2 which can then be added to a variety of infant formulas. They may also be used in seniors’ nutrition and eventually, all sorts of foods.
Many familiar globalists are invested in these faux dairy ventures. Biomilq investors, for example, include Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson, Masayoshi Son, Jack Ma, Michael Bloomberg and Marc Benioff.3
The first Biomilq product is expected to be ready for the market within the next three to five years.4 Other animal-free milk products are expected to hit the shelves sometime between 2023 and 2024.5,6 That includes ice cream made with lab-grown diary, which will go into Ben & Jerry’s product line.7
In the Environmental Health Symposium video above, Alan Lewis reviews what goes into the making of synthetic biology. Synthetic biology goes by many names, including “gene edited fermentation” and “precision fermentation products.”
While that sounds fairly innocuous, synthetic biology manufacturers rarely ever discuss what goes into the feed they use to grow the target organism, or what happens to the waste at the end of the fermentation process. That’s understandable, as both raise a number of serious questions.
What Are the Base Ingredients?
As explained by Lewis, the starting ingredients in fermented synthetic biology products are cheap sugars derived from GE corn and soy. All GE crops are grown in environmentally destructive monocultures with taxpayer subsidies, and use loads of herbicides such as glyphosate, pesticides like neonicotinoids and synthetic fertilizers. As a result, they’re loaded with chemical residues that end up in the final product.
In addition to a base of sugars, hundreds of other ingredients may be added to the ferment in order to produce the desired end product, such as a certain protein, color, flavor or scent.
Aside from the desired target metabolite, these gene-edited organisms may also be spitting out any number of non-target metabolites that have completely unknown environmental consequences and health effects.
As explained by Lewis, the most-often used microorganism in the fermentation process is E.coli. The E.coli is gene-edited to produce the desired compound through its digestive process. It also needs to be antibiotic-resistant, since it needs to survive the antibiotics used to kill off other undesirable organisms in the vat.
Aside from the desired target metabolite, these gene-edited organisms may also be spitting out any number of non-target metabolites that have completely unknown environmental consequences and health effects.
How Are Synthetic Biology Ferments Created?
As explained by Lewis, the various “feed” ingredients are placed in a fermentation bioreactor set at 87 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit for anywhere from 24 to hundreds of hours to grow the target microorganism. The target organisms in the ferment consume the nutrients they need, and what’s left over after those organisms are extracted is hazardous biowaste.
Importantly, while traditional fermentation processes, such as the making of beer, produces waste products that are edible by animals, compostable and pose no biohazard, the same cannot be said for these GMO synthetic biology ferments. The biowaste must first be deactivated, and then it must be securely disposed of. It cannot go into a landfill.
It’s important to realize that they are creating GMO organisms that have never existed on earth before, and these organisms and their waste are neither edible nor compostable, and there are unknown risks involved with unintentional or intentional release of these organisms into the environment.
They may also result in novel foodborne illnesses. And, since antibiotics are used to prevent the growth of undesirable organisms in the ferment, antibiotic-resistant organisms are automatically integrated into the final product. The types of foodborne illness that might be caused by gene-edited E.coli and its metabolites are anyone’s guess at this point. Nobody knows what such illness might look like.
The Fake Justification for Fake Foods
The justification for creating synthetic biology for food, including milk substitutes, is to prevent and reverse “climate change.” As reported by CNBC in June 2020:8
“Biomilq co-founder and CEO Michelle Egger … and her co-founder, CSO Leila Strickland, hope that the breast milk produced by Biomilq from culturing mammary epithelial cells will help reduce the carbon footprint from the global infant formula market …
‘Right now, by the estimations we have been able to make, at least 10% of the dairy market globally ends up in infant formula,’ Eggers said. ‘That means per-infant-fed formula in the U.S., 5,700 metric tons of CO2 are produced, and 4,300 gallons of freshwater are consumed each year to feed a child. Parents want to do what’s best for their kids but shouldn’t have to decide between feeding their children and protecting the planet.'”
While the push for synthetic biology is built on the idea that it will somehow save the environment from the ravages of factory farming, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and monocultures, it’s incredibly misleading, because it doesn’t address the fact that there are environmentally beneficial ways to farm, and we really should switch to those instead of transitioning into factory laboratories where everything that comes out of it is a biohazard.
In February 2021, the Good Food Institute (GFI), a nonprofit group behind the alternative protein industry, released a techno-economic analysis of cultivated meat, which was prepared by consulting firm CE Delft.9 In it, they developed a model to reduce the current costs of cultured meat production down to a point that would make it economically feasible in full-scale plants by 2030, a model they said is “feasible.”
In attempting to create cultured meat on the scale that would be necessary to feed the world, logistical problems are numerous and, possibly, insurmountable. There are waste products — catabolites — to deal with, as even cultured cells excrete waste that is toxic.
Oxygen and nutrients must also be adequately distributed to all the cells, something that’s difficult in a large reactor. Stirring the cells faster or adding more oxygen may help, but this can cause fatal stress to the cells.10
The environmental “benefits” are also on shaky ground when you factor in soy production as well as the use of conventional energy sources. When this is factored in, GFI’s life-cycle analysis found that cultured meat may actually be worse for the environment than conventionally produced chicken and pork.11,12
Repeat of a Failed System
Yet, the push for the creation of synthetic biology continues. In the foreword to Navdanya International’s report “False Solutions That Endanger Our Health and Damage the Planet,” Vandana Shiva details how lab-grown foods are catastrophic for human health and the environment, as they are repeating the mistakes already made with industrial agriculture:13
“In response to the crises in our food system, we are witnessing the rise of technological solutions that aim to replace animal products and other food staples with lab-grown alternatives. Artificial food advocates are reiterating the old and failed rhetoric that industrial agriculture is essential to feed the world.
Real, nutrient-rich food is gradually disappearing, while the dominant industrial agricultural model is causing an increase in chronic diseases and exacerbating climate change.
The notion that high-tech, ‘farm free’ lab food is a viable solution to the food crisis is simply a continuation of the same mechanistic mindset which has brought us to where we are today — the idea that we are separate from and outside of nature.
Industrial food systems have reduced food to a commodity, to ‘stuff’ that can then be constituted in the lab. In the process, both the planet’s health and our health have been nearly destroyed.”
Lab-Made Foods Are Junk Foods
It’s important to realize that all lab-created “foods” are ultraprocessed, and will likely impart the same kind of ill health effects as other ultraprocessed foods. In 2018, Friends of the Earth (FOE), a grassroots environmental group, released a report that posed critical questions about the trend toward synthetic biology. In it, they stressed the highly-processed nature of these products:14
“Various ‘processing aids’ are employed to make some of these products, including organisms (like genetically engineered bacteria, yeast and algae) that produce proteins, and chemicals to extract proteins.
For example, chemicals like hexane are used to extract components of a food, like proteins (from peas, soy, corn etc.) or compounds (from genetically engineered bacteria) to make xanthan gum … disclosure of these ingredients is not required.
Other processing aids (e.g. bacteria, yeast, algae), including those that are genetically engineered to produce proteins, are also not currently required to be disclosed on package labeling. The lack of transparency makes it difficult to assess the inputs and impact of their use.”
Basically, what the globalist cabal is attempting to do is to eliminate conventional farming methods like raising cattle for beef and dairy products, and replace them with synthetic, patented reproductions. In short, they’re taking whole foods and turning them into ultraprocessed junk foods, all while trying to convince you the junk food is healthier for you.
Synthetic Biology Is Part of a Control Scheme
Aside from the potential health hazards, lab-grown foods rely on monocultured crops that destroy the soil, resulting in carbon release. So, right there, the climate change justification falls apart. Since synthetic biology relies on GMO monoculture, it creates the very things they claim to counteract: environmental degradation that results in climate change.
As noted by Lewis, synthetic biology, which is the latest addition to the patented, genetically modified organism (GMO) food system, also results in a “massive shift in ownership and concentration of wealth … and control over our food supply.”
In short, synthetic biology creates reliance on industry that can then be used to manipulate and control the population in any number of ways. In the long term, people will eventually lose the know-how of producing their own food using traditional methods, and this may well be part of the plan.
The globalist cabal intends to create a one world government, and what better control tool than having everyone completely dependent on the state for all of its food?
Protect Your Health by Avoiding Frankenfoods
The drive for plant-based alternatives to real animal food, be it meat or dairy, isn’t due to health, or even to support vegan or vegetarian diets. Those truly interested in eating a plant-based diet can do so by eating real plants, after all, and in so doing can enjoy the many health benefits that eating plant foods provides. No, it’s about creating a system of control through food. It’s also a way to control people’s health.
It’s already known that the consumption of ultraprocessed food contributes to disease,15 but manufactured fake meat and dairy may also pose additional unknown risks.16 The benefactor of ill health, of course, is Big Pharma.
The processed food industry has spent many decades driving chronic illness that is then treated with drugs rather than a better diet. Synthetic foods will likely be an even bigger driver or chronic ill health and early death.
The fact is, fake meat and dairy cannot replace the complex mix of nutrients found in grass fed beef and dairy, and it’s likely that consuming ultraprocessed meat and milk alternatives may lead to many of the same health issues that are caused by a processed food diet. So, if you want to really protect your health and the environment, skip pseudofoods that require patents and stick to those found in nature instead.
The censors have been busily deleting, blocking or shadow banning online articles in the ‘awful’ event you may be led astray by the ‘antis’. In NZ’s case, they cannot have you thinking for yourself when your nation has only one source of truth … woe betide anybody whose toe crosses that line.
I happened across this list the other day actually quite by chance. On it are all three of my WP sites, this one that you are reading, plus here and here. They are classified as anti-V (you know that word) when in fact two of them have nothing whatsoever to do with Vs. Cast your eye down the very very long list and you will see the scope of forbidden topics in fact spreads far wider that the V. Another thing I’ve noticed are little bright red exclamation marks next to my site links … not safe to visit! The author does invite you to get in touch & make a case for not being on the ‘list’ … but as with most things nowadays, the onus of ‘proof’ is placed on the ‘recipient’ and not on the accuser, where it should be.
Recently when listening to Dr Mercola (another heavily censored MD) I heard him describing a very old article of his from two decades ago that he discovered is totally scrubbed from the internet. He could not find it anywhere. (No point in posting his links as he now takes his posts down after 48 hours & places them in a paid archive). Max Igan also who has his finger on the button, notes how article after article is being removed. I certainly have found that searching for material now in any search engine is pretty futile really. It’s clearly all geared to mainstream propaganda only. I would suggest when saving links that folk copy the entire article for safekeeping. Many articles I’ve only posted links for (out of courtesy in that the reader can go to the original source) are now dead. Videos follow the same pattern as YT is now reserved for material only JA would approve of.
And the libraries, well they’ve been culling those for a good while now too. (See here also). With the histories gone we’ll be all set for the coming reset.
The Enzed Govt doesn’t appear to just tinker with shadow banning and the like… back in early 2019 they hired a security firm with your tax dollars to spy on folk (EWR included) who didn’t want 1080 poison contaminating their water supplies. People who decline the consumption of this ‘harmless’ green ‘candy’ are classed as that other forbidden word that starts with ‘t’. If you’re a fan of the ‘candy’ by the way, read here.
On that concluding note, you persons that give birth … well those birth pains, like free speech, are set to be a thing of the past!
I was forwarded an email recently appealing for help for these farmers. Those who buy real milk aka by the newbies as ‘raw’ (ie non-treated to the extent all the goodness has gone) will be aware of the tough time these farmers have had in recent years as the system imposes more and more costs to stay afloat. Not difficult to see the agenda in light of the push toward fake food world wide. I’m copying their letter below (or see info at the link). If you are able to help I know that will be gratefully appreciated. EWR
The New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industry (MPI) has brought criminal charges against as many as 16 farmers for violations of that country’s Raw Milk for Sale to Consumers Regulations 2015 (the “2015 regulations”). As far as is known, none of the cases have actually gone to trial. At least five farmers have settled their cases by pleading guilty to a reduced number of charges and agreed to pay fines of as much as $50,000; in two other court actions where the farmers had plead guilty to violations of the raw milk laws, judges discharged the cases without convictions. Most of these farmers, whether or not they had to pay fines, owe tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees. Of these seven farmers, only one remains in the business of selling raw milk for human consumption. An attorney representing one of the farmers has been unable to find evidence that any of the charged farmers made anyone ill with the milk they produced.
ACTION TO TAKE
A GiveSendGo fund has been set up to help pay legal expenses for five of the prosecuted farmers (listed on the fund page). None of these farmers became rich selling raw milk—they were dedicated to producing healthy food for their customers and community. Please be there for them and help the farmers recover some of the losses they have suffered due to the unjust government enforcement actions.
The 2015 regulations were the catalyst for the prosecution against the dairies. The farmers are being prosecuted for a violation of laws designed to put them out of business. In addition to having to register with MPI, dairy farmers under the new regulations are required to:
The 2015 regulations had little to do with science and protecting the public health. Many farmers, believing that they would not be able to afford the cost of compliance with the new rules, distributed milk through contractual arrangements such as limited partnerships and herdshare agreements—arrangements they thought would exempt them from the new rules. When MPI saw that not many farms were registering, it launched a sting operation, “Operation Caravan”, against the unregistered raw milk farmers, leading to the ongoing criminal prosecutions.
The 2015 regulations have been a big success for MPI in driving raw milk farmers out of business. Shortly before the ministry issued the new regulations, there were upwards of 200 dairies selling raw milk; today there are around 25.
Please help the Weston A. Price Foundation restore nutrient-dense foods to the human diet through education, research and activism. westonaprice.org
Pollination can be a problem for gardeners when it does not occur naturally.
Various plants use different modes of pollination from attracting insects such as bees to move the pollen to air movement or vibration.
Often we think of the honey bees as the main pollinators, which for a number of plants and crops they surely are, but then there are bumble bees, native bees, flies, moths, butterflies and other insects which can all assist in the pollination process.
A number of native plants have white flowers to attract the moths at night as New Zealand did not originally have other pollinators other than our native bees.
The wind, or more to the point, breezes are also responsible for moving the pollen in some plants to complete the fertilisation process.
A good example of this in the vegetable garden is sweet corn, the pollen is formed on the male flowering heads at the top of the plant with the female corn tassels below, given a light breeze and the pollen dust falls to the tassels below or to the corn plant next door.
This is the reason we plant corn in clumps, fairly close to each other to ensure that a good set is achieved and the cobs are full.
Each one of those fine tassels that form on the ears of corn are connected individually to a embryo corn seed and each tassel needs to receive pollen to fill the cob completely.
Those cobs that only have a number of mature seeds with misses means that those misses did not receive pollen from the tassel.
When I grow corn I like to do a bit of hand pollination on a sunny day when the tops are laden with pollen. This is simply done by running your hand up the male flowers and dumping the contents on the female tassels below.
It helps ensure fuller cobs at harvest time. Also 2 weekly sprays of Magic Botanic Liquid makes for better, bigger sets on the cobs.
When nature and elements don’t do the pollination for you, then this is where you the gardener, can step in and do the job yourself.
Some plants are what we call ‘self fertile ‘which means that the plant will ensure that it will set seed without the need of another plant of the same species being anywhere near. Many of these are breeze pollinated.
The rest of the plants of various types are likely to need another similar plant nearby to ensure a good fruit or seed set.
These other plants are often referred to as pollinators and without one you will still get some fruit setting, but no where as good as if you had a pollinator also. Many of these will be pollinated by bees or other insects.
Then again in some plants such as with Kiwi Fruit you have a situation where some plants are male and some are female and then you need at least one male in close proximity to about 1 to 5 females.
Where room is limited we have overcome the problem of having to plant two separate kiwi fruit vines by grafting a male and female onto the same root stock.
Even then there is no guarantee that you are going to achieve a good fruit set as it requires bees to visit both the male and female flowers to move the pollen.
Because of the varroa mite, which has destroyed most if not all the feral bee colonies there may not be any honey bees around your gardens any more.
Then it comes down to the bumble bee and native bees along with other insects to do the job.
Chemical Insecticides such as Confidor also has caused all pollinators populations to decline.
Another problem may occur where the possible pollinators are elsewhere in the garden collecting nectar and leaving your tree alone even though its in full flower.
You can help to attract the possible pollinators to your target tree by dissolving raw sugar in hot water and adding more water and then spraying the sweet liquid over your target tree.
Another problem can occur if a plant is in a too shady situation where it does not get sufficient sunlight directly on the plant to initiate flower buds or if the buds form, they buds don’t open into flowers.
We often see this on roses in the shade which don’t flower well and also on flowering house plants that are too far from natural light to flower properly, such as flowering begonias.
Cold conditions can mean a plant such as a tomato will flower but not produce pollen, thus the flowers fall off after a few days. Cold setting types are best for those colder times.
Also if it gets too hot then tomatoes will not set fruit and that can be seen at times in glasshouses.
Tomatoes are not pollinated by honey bees, but the vibration from a bumble bees wings does the trick as they fly near the plant.
A light breeze on a sunny day when the flowers are pollen laden does the job and generally speaking tomato plants outdoors will set fruit well.
In glasshouses and similar sheltered areas the plants may fail to set and this can be overcome on a sunny day by simply tapping the stake or trunk of the plant to cause a vibration.
A very important aspect in the flowering fruiting cycle is to have ample potash available to any flowering/fruiting plant.
A monthly sprinkle of Fruit and Flower Power on the soil in the root zone will greatly assist.
Pumpkins, zucchini and melons have both male and female flowers on the same plant and the pollen needs to be moved from the male to the female.
If you have good populations of bumble bees around then they normally do the job for you otherwise you will not have a crop.
The female flower is easy to determine as they have the embryo fruit behind the flower, the male does not.
To ensure a good fruit set I like to, on a nice sunny day, pluck a male flower off the vine that has ample pollen and after removing the petals rub some of the pollen onto the centre part of the female flowers.
If the fruit is not pollinated it will still grow for a time but then rot off.
Passion fruit can be another one that a bit of hand pollination will help ensure a good crop.
Too much nitrogen in the form of man made fertilisers or animal manures can cause plants to vegetate which means they produce lots of growth but little or no flowers.
If this is happening then apply Fruit and Flower power to kick in the flowering cycle and stem the rapid growth.
Some plants such as bougainvillea need a bit of stress to give a great show of flowers.
If you feed them well and supply ample water they tend to grow all over the place and not flower.
Instead let them dry out for a time to kick in the flowering cycle and don’t feed them much either.
As a gardener you need to remember that most plants only flower to reproduce themselves by seed.
When their lives are threatened then they quickly go into a flowering cycle.
The best example of this is a number of annual weeds that grow lushly in the spring when there is ample rain but as soon as the soil starts to dry they start to flower.
On our vegetables such as cabbages and silverbeet we need to keep the soil moist because if we allow it to dry out too much the plants will bolt or in other words, go to seed prematurely.
One last aspect is potatoes, early types will be mature and ready to harvest when the tops start to flower.
Late types will be ready when they have flowered and the tops start to die back.
Often you may see that fruit not unlike tomatoes form on the potato tops, these are the fruit which are not to be eaten as they are poisonous, these fruit contain potato seed
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Part II of the Act covers a broad range of Civil and Political Rights. As part of the right to life and the security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:
1The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)
2The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment (Section 9)
3The right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without consent (Section 10)
4The right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment (Section 11)
Furthermore, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 guarantees everyone: Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion. This includes the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO ADOPT AND HOLD OPINIONS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE (Section 1)
” Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.” ~ Albert Einstein
Whereas the quote above could easily be dismissed as the ‘progress-denying’ sentiment of a disgruntled anti-GMO activist, the fact is that it came from a scientist representing the very epitome of Western rationality and accomplishment.
Perhaps Einstein was reflecting on the inevitable existential consequences of the so-called “technological imperative”–whatever can be done, will be done. Fundamentally amoral and irrational economic and political forces drive technology’s feverish pace, infusing a certain arbitrary cruelty and disequilibrium into everything it touches.
In our continual drive to ‘improve upon Nature’ in the name of much-hyped, ‘life-saving’ biotechnological innovations, the line between humane and inhumane eventually is crossed, and there seems no going back. Biopollution from defective or dangerous GMO genes, for example…
From gmwatch.org Dr Ray Seidler explains why caution is needed
Recently the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the commercial production and sale of a new purple coloured genetically modified (GM) tomato, known as the “purple tomato”. The US Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for food safety, has yet to approve it.[1] Here, once again, we have an unnecessary food product, genetically engineered for patent protection – a financially motivated concept – and without human safety testing.
Anthocyanins are a group of water-soluble phenolic pigments that give the tomato its purple colour. It is not a dominant group of compounds in red tomatoes. The purple tomato is genetically engineered to cause over-expression of this particular group of polyphenolic anthocyanin pigments.
There are already numerous (heritage) varieties of natural purple tomatoes, so why would we need another one that is genetically engineered? The heritage varieties have anthocyanins mostly concentrated in their skin, whereas the GM variety has them all the way through the fruit – hence the unusually high levels.
The producers of the purple tomato are quoted as saying, “The tomatoes may… mark a turning point for genetically modified foods nationwide. The engineered trait is meant to entice the shopper, not the farmer.” The inventors, Professors Cathie Martin and Jonathan Jones, have formed a private spinout company, Norfolk Plant Sciences, to sell the GM tomato seeds.
The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), “has determined that Norfolk Plant Sciences’ “modified tomato is unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk relative to its [non-GM] comparator”. Increased risk of being a plant pest is the wrong issue to evaluate risk assessments of GM foods and doesn’t come close to representing the whole spectrum of risks from cultivated GM crops, but that is what the USDA regulation requires. If they are not a plant pest, the USDA thinks they must be OK for environmental release and can be grown commercially.
When consumed in moderation, anti-inflammatory compounds like anthocyanins can have health benefits. But too much of a good thing may not be good. It has been demonstrated that over-consumption of anthocyanins (e.g. when taken as pill supplements) may cause kidney, liver, and thyroid hormone health effects. Anthocyanins are part of a group of compounds called polyphenols, which may also limit or interfere with iron absorption.
The average American consumes around 12.5 milligrams of these antioxidants per day. The anthocyanin content from the GM tomato averages about 500mg/100gm of fresh fruit, some 40 times more than the daily average consumption. One hundred grams of tomato is less than half a cup. Other naturally purple coloured fruits (sweet cherries, blackberries, strawberries, red raspberries, black grapes) contain anthocyanins in the range of 3-143mg/100gm, up to 160-fold less than the GM purple tomato.
A mini-review from Harvard University and University of Melbourne scientists asserts the need for increased regulation and guidelines for polyphenol consumption and supplementation in order to ensure that consumers remain safe and informed about polyphenols (like anthocyanins). When taken in pill form it may be easily possible to exceed safe levels, potentially causing serious ailments. For example, one commercial pill formulation prepared from sour cherries recommends two pills, with a resulting daily dose of 40mg of anthocyanins. This 40mg per day might be a concern to the Harvard scientists, but it represents only 8% of the 500mg level found in 0.4 cups of the fresh GM tomato.
The US Food and Drug Administration allows health claims for antioxidant nutrients with an established Recommended Daily Intake (RDI) – for example, vitamins A and C. But polyphenols are not a vitamin and nor do they have an RDI. Polyphenols are often sold as nutritional supplements (pills), which are minimally regulated in the US, meaning a greater number of functional claims can be made. There are currently no regulatory recommendations for the quantity of consumption of polyphenols in foods.
The potential for the consumption of deleterious levels of polyphenols is especially of concern with supplements (pills) and may happen through over-indulgence in certain foods. Some manufacturers recommend pill intakes over 100-fold higher than those currently associated with a Western diet. In some cases, supplementation trials of antioxidants have been associated with adverse effects, including increased mortality or stroke. The current lack of “nutritional supplement” regulations in the US may contribute to overhyped claims, potentially resulting in over consumption of pills or overconsumption of a fad food like the new GM purple tomato at potentially harmful levels.
In the US, stickers are placed on many foods, especially fresh vegetables and fruits, indicating how they were produced. If it is labelled with 5 digits beginning with an 8, it ain’t great: It’s genetically engineered and likely contains pesticides. If it is labelled with 4 digits beginning with a 3 or 4, close the door and walk away (it’s conventionally grown and probably contains pesticides). If it is labelled with 5 digits beginning with a 9, it should be fine (it’s organic).[2] A non-GMO label means it’s been tested and found not to contain genetically engineered genes.
Lastly, we should not forget that Jackson County, Oregon, where I live, is one of eight GMO-free counties in the United States. Despite a challenge to the original 2014 ordinance that prohibits the planting of GM seeds and passed by County voters by a margin of 2:1, subsequent legal challenges failed and the ordinance stands. This means no GM purple tomato seeds can be legally planted in Jackson County, Oregon. However, we should also not forget that the purple tomato can be sold in local stores. Limited distribution in the US is expected in 2023.
I advise shoppers to treat GM purple tomatoes with caution.
GMWatch editor’s notes
1. In the FDA’s mind, it does “approve” foods for sale. However, with GM foods, the FDA doesn’t approve these foods as safe in its own estimation. It only undertakes a voluntary (voluntary to the company applicant) review of a GM food and sends a “no questions” letter to the company applying to sell the GM food if it has no further questions. In the letter, it reminds the company that it is the company’s responsibility, not that of the FDA, to only to put safe foods on the market.
2. According to US-based Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology, the numbers system is “a voluntary system created by a produce marketing association to help with inventory control, in case any company wants to label products as GMOs. It hasn’t ever been used, to my knowledge. In an interview with the association, they said it was never designed for consumer identification.” CBAN also notes on their website: “There is no code for GMOs. The code number ‘8’ is NO LONGER USED FOR GMOS: The International Federation for Produce Standards set aside a number (8) for identifying GM foods but it was not being used and was changed in 2015 to identify conventionally produce (not organic) food. The code number ‘9’ denotes organic produce: This code distinguish between organic and conventionally produced fresh fruits and vegetables. Organic food is produced without the use of any genetically modified organisms. Organic produce is identified with a number that begins with ‘9’: for example, 4011 identifies a conventionally grown papaya and 94011 identifies an organically grown papaya. But organic food is already identified with the national Canada Organic standard logo.”
Dr Ray Seidler has taught and conducted research at five major US universities. He spent half his career as a professor of microbiology at Oregon State University and another 16 years as a senior research scientist at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While at the EPA he headed the US’s first genetically engineered organism risk assessment program. He has published over 150 peer reviewed articles on various aspects of environmental microbiology. He is currently retired.
Liz Gunn of FreeNZ Media speaks with Charles MacKenzie, President of “Infected Blood Australia”, about the Hepatitis-C contaminated blood scandal that affected citizens in Australia and New Zealand over 20 years ago and is still yet to be investigated.
Infected Blood Australia supports Baby Will and the Savage-Reeves family’s right to choose un-jabbed direct donor blood.
“Canadian army veteran and Paralympian Christine Gauthier [in a battle to obtain a stairlift for her home] was offered an extraordinary alternative. A Canadian official told her in 2019 that if her life was so difficult and she so ‘desperate’, the government would help her to kill herself. ‘”
Anyone who ever thought that the compassionate response to extreme human suffering is a society that helps people find permanent release from their pain may want to look at some of the horror stories coming out of Canada recently.
To be clear, euthanasia laws in the US are nothing like those of its neighbor to the north. But American acceptance of the practice has been growing for decades despite warnings that legalized suicide is a slippery slope toward a calamitous debasement of human life.
Canada, a country that prides itself on its open-mindedness and tolerance, has the most permissive rules on euthanasia in the world – and the results have been frankly terrifying.
Last year, more than 10,000 people in Canada – astonishingly that’s over three percent of all deaths there – ended their lives via euthanasia, an increase of a third on the previous year. And it’s likely to keep rising: next year, Canada is set to allow people to die exclusively for mental health reasons.
Only last week, a jaw-dropping story emerged of how, five years into an infuriating battle to obtain a stairlift for her home, Canadian army veteran and Paralympian Christine Gauthier was offered an extraordinary alternative.
A Canadian official told her in 2019 that if her life was so difficult and she so ‘desperate’, the government would help her to kill herself. ‘I have a letter saying that if you’re so desperate, madam, we can offer you MAiD, medical assistance in dying,’ the paraplegic ex-army corporal testified to Canadian MPs.
You must be logged in to post a comment.