Month: April 2009

(NaturalNews) Insufficient blood levels of vitamin D may cause adolescent girls to have weaker muscles, according to a new study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

"We know vitamin D deficiency can weaken the muscular and skeletal systems, but until now, little was known about the relationship of vitamin D with muscle power and force," lead researcher Kate Ward said. "Our study found that vitamin D is positively related to muscle power, force, velocity and jump height in adolescent girls."

The researchers measured vitamin D blood levels from 99 girls between the ages of 12 and 14, all of them students at the same inner city, multi-ethnic Manchester school. They found that 75 percent of the participants had vitamin D levels lower than optimal, although none were yet exhibiting any symptoms of deficiency.

Deficiency of vitamin D is well known to lead to hampered calcium absorption, which can cause the weakening of bones and lead to fractures and osteoporosis. Newer research suggests that it may also increase the risk of cancer, heart disease and autoimmune disorders.

The researchers also measured each participant's muscle strength and force through a variety of jumping exercises. They found a direct correlation between vitamin D blood levels and the girls' performance on the muscle strength tests.

"These data highlight the importance of vitamin D status on muscle function in adolescent girls. Sub-optimal force might have implications for long-term bone development," the researchers wrote.

Scientists and medical professionals believe that vitamin D deficiency is widespread, particularly among darker skinned people living far from the equator, whose bodies cannot synthesize enough of the vitamin from the weak winter sunlight. Recent studies suggest that as many as 55 percent of apparently healthy U.S. adolescents might be vitamin D deficient.

(NaturalNews) Most people react to being told they have high cholesterol in the same way they would if they were told they have cancer. Somehow the idea of having high cholesterol can strike deep fear into the heart of a person. After all, doesn't a high cholesterol reading mean you are a walking heart attack waiting to happen?

Most people are familiar with the terms "good" cholesterol and "bad" cholesterol. HDL is considered good cholesterol, while LDL is considered bad. High LDL levels may not be as much of a risk factor if HDL levels are also high. In the same way, low HDL levels and moderate LDL may show up as a low cholesterol reading, but it might be a more dangerous arrangement than overall high cholesterol numbers.

In addition, traditional cholesterol readings do not look at the possible variations in LDL cholesterol particles. LDL is considered the "bad" cholesterol, but this is only half true. In simple terms, LDL particles can be either small or large. Large particles seem to do little harm in the body while small LDL particles do more serious damage and may be a more reliable predictor of heart disease.

It's important to keep in mind that one of cholesterol's many duties is to repair lesions in the arteries. So, the reality is that cholesterol in the arteries is a symptom of heart problems more than an actual cause. It does not actually travel to the heart just to stick to the walls of your arteries and give you heart disease. Cholesterol is really in your arteries because of damage that has already been incurred.

If high cholesterol itself was a clear predictor of heart attack, then you must assume that lowing cholesterol levels is an effective way to prevent heart attacks. This is simply not true. Looking at the combined results of more than 40 different trials which looked at whether lowering cholesterol levels reduced the occurrence of heart disease, you might be surprised at the results. Analysis shows there were similar rates of heart attack and overall mortality both in the groups who lowered their cholesterol and in those who did not.

A study done at the University Hospital in Toronto looked at 120 men who had previously had a heart attack. The study showed men with high cholesterol or low cholesterol were equally likely to have a second heart attack. Another Canadian study followed 5,000 men for twelve years and could not find a link between high cholesterol and heart attack.

A study called the Honolulu Heart Program was published in 2001. It looked at more than 8,000 individuals and made this statement: "Long-term persistence of low cholesterol concentration actually increases the risk of death. Thus, the earlier the patients start to have lower cholesterol concentrations, the greater the risk of death."

Of course, cholesterol levels shouldn't be ignored entirely. It's important to have an accurate picture of your overall health, and very high cholesterol may be an indicator of other risk factors. But simply lowering your cholesterol may not prevent the onset of heart disease. By taking some of the heat off cholesterol, people can truly take charge of their health by minimizing other risk factors such as stress, obesity and inactivity. 

NattoMax
Pancreatin
Cardio EZ

Since that time we at Utopia Silver have been considering selling the Duracool line of products, and last week we decided to do so. The advantages of these products are simply too many to ignore. The refrigerant used in most vehicles in the USA, 134a, auto-ignites at approx. 1300 degrees; for Duracool it is over 1600 degrees. The colder air output of Duracool and more efficient cooling require less compressor running and therefore saves on gasoline. The molecules of Duracool are over 3½ times larger than 134a, reducing the chance of costly leaks. Additionally, Duracool doesn't deteriorate compressor and cooling system parts as does 134a, extending the life of your unit and making future repairs less frequent. Duracool is more environmentally friendly and non-toxic; unlike 134a which can cause cardiac arrest if breathed.

You may first want to find an automobile A/C man who will either order the Duracool for you or who will allow you to provide your own coolant. The old 134a needs to be evacuated from your system before recharging it with Duracool. If you have a system that has already leaked out due to a small, slow leak, you may want to use the Duracool DuraDry to remove the moisture in the system and then add Duracool System Seal to reseal the leak. Consult an A/C technician to determine whether or not this is feasible. If you decide that the leak is not too bad and is repairable, then you can add the Duracool 12a. If you are interested in these products, please go to the Duracool page to order.

Ben Taylor

The researchers had noted that folic acid fortification in food had helped to lower the prevalence of neural tube defects by about 50% to 70%. As it was not likely that levels of folic acid added would be increased anymore to further help prevent neural tube defect occurrence, they set out to investigate another modifiable risk factor – vitamin B12. This nutrient was chosen due to the fact that it was metabolically related to folic acid, and also because previous research had suggested that mothers who gave birth to babies affected by the condition tended to have low levels of it.

Details and Findings of Study

For the study, the team looked at data on pregnancy vitamin B12 levels of close to 1,200 Irish women, at a time when food fortification or consumption of vitamin supplements was still uncommon. Three separate groups of women, each having a sub-group of pregnancies hit by neural tube defect and a sub-group which acted as controls, were used. The first group compared with controls women when they had a pregnancy affected by neural tube defect; the second group compared with controls women who had previously been affected by the condition but whose present pregnancy was not; and the third group was similar to the first group.

The researchers found that women whose children had been affected by the said defect had markedly lower levels of vitamin B12 in their blood. This was consistent throughout the three groups. After adjustment, the risk of a woman in the lowest vitamin B12 quartile having a child hit by neural tube defect was two to three times that of a woman in the highest quartile.

Highest risks were found for women who had pregnancy blood vitamin B1 2 levels of less than 250 ng/L. The study team suggested that, to reduce their risk of having pregnancies affected by neural tube defect, women boost their vitamin B12 levels to above 300 ng/L (or 221 pmol/L) before conceiving. Having sufficient amounts of folic acid and vitamin B12 before getting pregnant is important, because these nutrients seem to be most vital in an embryo's first few days and weeks. And, as about half of all pregnancies are not planned, women of childbearing age are currently advised to consume at least 400 micrograms of folic acid each day.

Findings of another Study in Canada

The findings of this study were mirrored in those of another recent study which was conducted in Canada and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The researchers in the Canadian study had found that the risk of neural tube defects was three times as high in pregnant women whose vitamin B12 levels were in the lower quartile; this applied whether the data was collected before or after folic acid fortification took place in the country. They concluded that their findings suggest vitamin B12 fortification may help cut the rate of neural tube defects more than folic acid fortification alone.

Vegans Are More At Risk of Vitamin B12 Deficiency

Vitamin B12 is commonly found in meats, milk, cheese and eggs. As the vitamin does not occur naturally in plant foods, vegans tend to be at higher risk of being deficient in it.

The Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG) is a non-profit organization which is dedicated to educating the public on vegetarianism and connected issues such as health, nutrition, ecology, ethics and world hunger. According to them, possible sources of vitamin B12 for vegans include certain sources of nutritional yeast, fortified cereals, fortified soy milk, fortified meat analogues (foods made using wheat gluten or soybeans to resemble animal flesh), as well as vitamin B12 supplements. Foods such as tempeh, miso and sea vegetables are sometimes said to have vitamin B12, although they are not considered reliable sources of it.

References

Molloy AM et al. Maternal Vitamin B12 Status and Risk of Neural Tube Defects in a Population With High Neural Tube Defect Prevalence and No Folic Acid Fortification.
Pediatrics 2009;123(3):917-923.

Thompson MD et al. Vitamin B-12 and neural tube defects: the Canadian experience. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2009;89(2):697S-701S.

"Vitamin B-12 deficiency tied to neural tube birth defects" by Liz Szabo, USA Today. Updated 3/1/2009.

(NaturalNews) Diabetes is now being diagnosed at a rate 90 percent higher than it was a decade ago, according to a study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 33 states and Puerto Rico.

New cases of diabetes are most likely to be diagnosed in Puerto Rico, with 12.8 new cases per 1,000 people per year. Closely following was West Virginia, with an annual rate of 12.7 cases per 1,000 people. The other states in the top 10 were all in the south — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas — with the exception of Arizona.

The lowest rate of new cases — only five per 1,000 people — was found in Minnesota.

People with diabetes also suffer a higher risk of heart disease, stroke, nerve and kidney damage, blindness and loss of limb than the rest of the population. According to the American Diabetes Association, roughly 8 percent of the U.S. population, or 23.6 million people, currently suffer from the disease.

The best way to prevent diabetes is to become more physically active and lose even a small amount of weight, doctors say.

Purchase Chromium GTF

The Internet’s buzzing about a bill in Congress its sponsor and supporters say is vital for protecting consumers from food-borne illnesses, but critics claim would place all U.S. food production “from farm to fork” under control of federal bureaucrats, effectively destroying family farms and farmers markets in the process and hijacking the burgeoning organic food movement.

“The truly chilling language lays out civil and criminal penalties of up to $1 million per day, per infraction, and imprisonment of five or 10 years, or both, depending how serious the violation(s),” De Weese adds, characterizing the bill as “over-the-top in its overreach.”

Particularly attention grabbing: the bill would bring in the National Animal ID System through the back door, opponents claim.

Introduced Feb. 4 by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), in the middle of the peanut-product recall, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 (HR 875) was assigned to both the House Committee on Agriculture and the Energy and Commerce Committee. It has 41 co-sponsors. Although not yet scheduled for a hearing, proponents have been forced into damage control mode because of public outrage coming from a politically diverse opposition.

Spokesperson in DeLauro’s office offer assurances: “The bill does not apply to vendors at farmers markets, and therefore will not change the way this business runs. It is meant to address food sold in supermarkets.”

The non-profit Food and Water Watch weighs in: “There is no language in the bill that would result in farmers markets being regulated, penalized by any fines or shut down. Farmers markets would be able to continue to flourish under the bill. In fact, the bill would insist that unsafe imported foods are not competing with locally grown foods.”

A “Major Threat” to Local Food

But in an extensive analysis the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund – a DC-based advocacy group that champions locally grown and organic food production – foresees HR 875 fueling “a tremendous expansion of federal power, particularly the power to regulate intrastate commerce” and warns:

    “While the proposed legislation tries to address the many problems of the industrial food system, the impact on small farms if the bill becomes law would be substantial and not for the better HR 875 is a major threat to sustainable farming and the local food movement.” [Emphasis added]

If enacted, there would be a reshuffling within the Department of Health and Human Services. The Food and Drug Administration, a division of HHS, would be split into two agencies – one to deal with food, the other with drugs and medical devices. This second agency would be titled the Federal Drug and Device Administration and keep the acronym FDA.

Food-safety functions would be transferred to a new Food Safety Administration, headed by a food tsar (Administrator of Food Safety) appointed by the President for a five-year term, with Senate approval. The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and the Center for Veterinary Medicine – both presently part of the FDA — would move into the new Food Safety Administration, along with the National Marine Fisheries Service from the Department of Commerce.

That’s for starters.

The shakeup at Health and Human Services would be accompanied by tremendous expansion of federal regulatory power over the nation’s food producers, with mandated surveillance and monitoring of all farming, processing, transporting, and selling operations. The new agency is to “modernize and strengthen Federal food safety law,” making certain that food establishments are able to guarantee “that all stages of production, processing, and distribution of their products under their control satisfy the requirements of this law.”

The food tsar is tasked with developing and implementing a national food safety program, one that can ensure “that persons who produce, process, or distribute food meet their responsibility to prevent or minimize food safety hazards related to their products.”

This nationwide program is to be based on a “comprehensive analysis” of “hazards” – including identification of “the sources of potentially hazardous contamination or practices extending from the farm or ranch to the consumer that may increase the risk of food-borne illness.” The Administrator will also set up a national system for the registration of food establishments and foreign food establishments.

Defenders of H.R. 875 insist it wouldn’t overburden small farming operations; that the law is aimed at “Food establishments” – facilities where food is actually processed and packaged, where food-borne illnesses begin. Indeed, there’s a subsection under “Definitions” (Section 3) that at first reading appears would exclude farms from the onerous regulatory provisions of the law. Specifically:

    “(13) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (A) The term ‘food establishment’ means a slaughterhouse (except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or facility owned or operated by a person located in any State that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients.

    “(B) EXCLUSIONS: For the purposes of registration, the term ‘food establishment’ does not include a food production facility as defined in paragraph (14), other retail food establishments, …
    “(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY – The term “food production facility” means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.”

The devil’s in the details, and these are in Section 206 which deals with Food Production Facilities. According to FTCLDF, the only thing farms and the other food production facilities don’t have to do is register with the FSA as food establishments must. The agency has sweeping powers to regulate farming practices, and is directed to issue regulations establishing “minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water.”

“The Feds would control to a much greater degree the inputs farmers can use as well as the products farmers can produce (raw milk). Unannounced federal inspections of small farms will be the order of the day, reducing the level of protection provided by the Fourth Amendment.”

Here’s a taste of what farmers and other food producers can expect from H.R. 875 if it becomes law:

    • Each food production facility – no matter how small – would have to have a written food-safety plan describing “the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards.”

    • Farmers selling directors to consumers would have to make their customer list available to federal inspectors.

    Federal inspectors would be authorized to:

    • inspect food production facilities to make sure the producer is “operating in compliance with the requirements of the food safety law;”

    • conduct “monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment, as appropriate;”

    • access and copy all records to determine if food is “contaminated, adulterated, or otherwise not in compliance with the food safety law or to track the food in commerce.”

FTCLDF stresses that these regulations and requirements apply even if the farm is engaged in only intrastate commerce – that is, within state boundaries. Under the existing Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, the FDA can only inspect farms that produce food destined for commerce across state lines. HR 875 changes this – all production and commerce becomes “interstate.” Section 406 provides: “In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist.”

“Traceability” and the National Animal ID System

Under Section 210 – “Traceback Requirements” – the Food Safety Administration is charged with setting up a national traceability system requiring farmers to keep extensive records that would enable inspectors to track “the history, use, and location of an item of food.”

This system is to be “Consistent with existing statutes and regulations that require record-keeping or labeling for identifying the origin or history of food or food animals,” including “The National Animal Identification system (NAIS) as authorized by the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 (AHPA).”

The problem is that NAIS was not authorized by the AHPA; it’s never been authorized by congressional legislation.

Jim Babka, editor of DownsizeDC.org, a political action website, regards this as a “bureaucratic initiative,” a “de facto authorization” of NAIS.

“This false assumption gives NAIS the aura of congressional approval,” he writes. “Instead, this is another step on the road to converting NAIS from a voluntary program to a mandatory one. This is exactly what we predicted three years ago when we launched our anti-NAIS campaign.”

Could “Raw” Milk Take a Hit?

Many critics are worried whether it will be legal to purchase over deeply concerned over HR 875 bans unpasteurized milk. According to the FTCLDF it’ll depend on the regulations, but the future doesn’t look good. Right now it’s illegal to sell unpasteurized milk across state lines, but some states allow its sale within their boundaries, albeit grudgingly and with heavy restrictions. HR 875 puts even this limited market in jeopardy.

FTCLDF explains:

    “FDA has long wanted a complete ban on the sale of raw milk. The agency’s mantra is that raw milk should not be consumed by anyone at any time for any reason. The agency does not consider this subject to be debatable…Under HR 875, FSA is given statutory authority to unilaterally impose a ban.” [Emphasis added]

    “Under HR 875, FSA has the power to adopt “preventative process controls to reduce adulteration of food” [Section 203], and to issue regulations that “limit the presence and growth of contaminants in food prepared in a food establishment using the best reasonably available techniques and technologies” [Section 203(b)(1)(D)]. FDA has long made it clear that in its opinion the best available technology to limit contamination in milk is pasteurization.”

Even if the FSA doesn’t issue an outright ban, raw milk producers could be harassed out of business instead. HR 875 designates dairies and farms processing milk as Category 2 Food Establishments – and these are to be “randomly inspected at least weekly.”

$1 Million-a-Day Fines for the Food Police

On March 14, during his weekly radio broadcast, President Barack Obama accused the Bush administration of having created a “hazard to public health” by not solving food contamination problems, adding he planned to set up set up a “Food Safety Working Group” to “upgrade our food safety laws for the 21st century.”

    [Advertising: Hard economic times are on the horizon. Don't be caught short. Be sure you can feed your family. Order your survival seed kit today! It's vary affordable. Call 877-327-0365, be sure to mention NewsWithViews.com]

That’s going to cost money, and Obama said he’d ask Congress for $1 billion to pay for added inspectors and new laboratories.

If $1 billion isn’t enough, HR 875 has its own built-in money generator to make up any deficit. Fines can be assessed at up to $1 million a day per violation – and each day a violation continues is considered a separate offense. That’s for civil offenses. Criminal offenses – those causing illness or death — mandate lengthy jail terms for those deemed responsible.

Fines collected by the agency are to be deposited in an account in the Treasury, and the agency “may use the funds in the account without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation . . . to carry out enforcement activities under the food safety law.” The agency may also use the funds “to provide assistance to States to inspect retail commercial food establishments or other food or firms under the jurisdiction of State food safety programs.

As FTCLDF see it: “This would give the States reason to support the bill despite the fact that it dilutes much of what is left of their Tenth Amendment police power to regulate food.”

“Great for Factory Farming”

“How did they get this far with such a scheme to apply insane industrial standards to every farm in the country?” asks Linn Cohen-Cole. “Through fear of diseases and of outbreaks of food borne illnesses, both of which they [the multi-national food corporations] cause themselves.” Cole-Cohen, self-described “leftist” and Democrat, isn’t alone in linking the food industry to food control bills like HR 875.

HR 875 would be “Devastating for everyday folks but great for factory farming ops like Monsanto, ADM, Sodexo and Tyson to name a few,” writes Lydia Scott at Campaign for Liberty. “I have no doubt that this legislation was heavily influenced by lobbyists from huge food producers. … It will literally put all independent farmers and food producers out of business due to the huge amounts of money it will take to conform to factory farming methods.”

The role of agribusiness in actually writing HR 875 is a valid question. The fact that DeLauro’s husband Stanley Greenberg, a powerful Democratic political strategist and consultant, counts pesticide and biotech giant Monsanto among his many clients has helped fuel a growing bipartisan opposition to the bill itself, as has the revelation that DeLauro received over $186,000 from agribusiness for her recent re-election campaign.

Critics like Cohen-Cole, Scott and DeWeese say HR 875 has little or nothing to do with food safety and everything to do with government and corporate control of the food supply, and ultimately over the population. As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger famously observed: "Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world."

For More Information and to Take Action

1. HR 875 has not been set for a hearing. Opponents hope to keep it from getting out of committee and are urging phone calls and emails to committee members and congressional representatives.
2. Tom DeWeese’s Sledgehammer Alert provides excellent analysis, with contact information and phone numbers on committee members and other members of Congress.
3. The Analysis by Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund.
4. A PDF version of HR 875 is here. It’s over 100 pages.
5. See also the Q&A section on HR 875.
6. Linn Cohen-Cole and Sue Diederich, of the Illinois Independent Consumers and Farmers Association, take a "Solemn walk through HR 875 at OpEd News, a site self-described as “liberal…tough…progressive.”

Big Brother legislation could mean prosecution, fines up to $1 million

Some small farms and organic food growers could be placed under direct supervision of the federal government under new legislation making its way through Congress.

House Resolution 875, or the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, was introduced by Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., in February. DeLauro's husband, Stanley Greenburg, conducts research for Monsanto – the world's leading producer of herbicides and genetically engineered seed.

DeLauro's act has 39 co-sponsors and was referred to the House Agriculture Committee on Feb. 4. It calls for the creation of a Food Safety Administration to allow the government to regulate food production at all levels – and even mandates property seizure, fines of up to $1 million per offense and criminal prosecution for producers, manufacturers and distributors who fail to comply with regulations.

Michael Olson, host of the Food Chain radio show and author of "Metro Farm," told WND the government should focus on regulating food production in countries such as China and Mexico rather than burdening small and organic farmers in the U.S. with overreaching regulations.

"We need somebody to watch over us when we're eating food that comes from thousands and thousands of miles away. We need some help there," he said. "But when food comes from our neighbors or from farmers who we know, we don't need all of those rules. If your neighbor sells you something that is bad and you get sick, you are going to get your hands on that farmer, and that will be the end of it. It regulates itself."

Want your vegetables to grow like crazy? Get the amazing natural fertilizer designed to maximize taste and nutrient density!

The legislation would establish the Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services "to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes."

Federal regulators will be tasked with ensuring that food producers, processors and distributors – both large and small – prevent and minimize food safety hazards such as food-borne illnesses and contaminants such as bacteria, chemicals, natural toxins or manufactured toxicants, viruses, parasites, prions, physical hazards or other human pathogens.

Under the legislation's broad wording, slaughterhouses, seafood processing plants, establishments that process, store, hold or transport all categories of food products prior to delivery for retail sale, farms, ranches, orchards, vineyards, aquaculture facilities and confined animal-feeding operations would be subject to strict government regulation.

Government inspectors would be required to visit and examine food production facilities, including small farms, to ensure compliance. They would review food safety records and conduct surveillance of animals, plants, products or the environment.

"What the government will do is bring in industry experts to tell them how to manage all this stuff," Olson said. "It's industry that's telling government how to set these things up. What it always boils down to is who can afford to have the most influence over the government. It would be those companies that have sufficient economies of scale to be able to afford the influence – which is, of course, industrial agriculture."

Farms and food producers would be forced to submit copies of all records to federal inspectors upon request to determine whether food is contaminated, to ensure they are in compliance with food safety laws and to maintain government tracking records. Refusal to register, permit inspector access or testing of food or equipment would be prohibited.

"What is going to happen is that local agriculture will end up suffering through some onerous protocols designed for international agriculture that they simply don't need," Olson said. "Thus, it will be a way for industrial agriculture to manage local agriculture." Under the act, every food producer must have a written food safety plan describing likely hazards and preventative controls they have implemented and must abide by "minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water."

"That opens a whole can of worms

," Olson said. "I think that's where people are starting to freak out about losing organic agriculture. Who is going to decide what the minimum standards are for fertilization or anything else? The government is going to bring in big industry and say we are setting up these protocols, so what do you think we should do? Who is it going to bring in to ask? The government will bring in people who have economies of scale who have that kind of influence."

DeLauro's act calls for the Food Safety Administration to create a "national traceability system" to retrieve history, use and location of each food product through all stages of production, processing and distribution.

Olson believes the regulations could create unjustifiable financial hardships for small farmers and run them out of business.

"That is often the purpose of rules and regulations: to get rid of your competition," he said. "Only people who are very, very large can afford to comply. They can hire one person to do paperwork. There's a specialization of labor there, and when you are very small, you can't afford to do all of these things."

Olson said despite good intentions behind the legislation, this act could devastate small U.S. farms.

"Every time we pass a rule or a law or a regulation to make the world a better place, it seems like what we do is subsidize production offshore," he said. "We tell farmers they can no longer drive diesel tractors because they make bad smoke. Well, essentially what we're doing is giving China a subsidy to grow our crops for us, or Mexico or anyone else."

Section 304 of the Food Safety Modernization Act establishes a group of "experts and stakeholders from Federal, State, and local food safety and health agencies, the food industry, consumer organizations, and academia" to make recommendations for improving food-borne illness surveillance.

According to the act, "Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law … may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such act."

Each violation and each separate day the producer is in defiance of the law would be considered a separate offense and an additional penalty. The act suggests federal administrators consider the gravity of the violation, the degree of responsibility and the size and type of business when determining penalties.

Criminal sanctions may be imposed if contaminated food causes serious illness or death, and offenders may face fines and imprisonment of up to 10 years.

"It's just frightening what can happen with good intentions," Olson said. "It's probably the most radical notions on the face of this Earth, but local agriculture doesn't need government because it takes care of itself."

Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act

Another "food safety" bill that has organic and small farmers worried is Senate Bill 425, or the Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act, sponsored by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

Brown's bill is backed by lobbyists for Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland and Tyson. It was introduced in September and has been referred to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee. Some say the legislation could also put small farmers out of business.

Like HR 875, the measure establishes a nationwide "traceability system" monitored by the Food and Drug Administration for all stages of manufacturing, processing, packaging and distribution of food. It would cost $40 million over three years.

"We must ensure that the federal government has the ability and authority to protect the public, given the global nature of the food supply," Brown said when he introduced the bill. He suggested the FDA and USDA have power to declare mandatory recalls.

The government would track food shipped in interstate commerce through a recordkeeping and audit system, a secure, online database or registered identification. Each farmer or producer would be required to maintain records regarding the purchase, sale and identification of their products. A 13-member advisory committee of food safety and tracking technology experts, representatives of the food industry, consumer advocates and government officials would assist in implementing the traceability system.

The bill calls for the committee to establish a national database or registry operated by the Food and Drug Administration. It also proposes an electronic records database to identify sales of food and its ingredients "establishing that the food and its ingredients were grown, prepared, handled, manufactured, processed, distributed, shipped, warehoused, imported, and conveyed under conditions that ensure the safety of the food."

It states, "The records should include an electronic statement with the date of, and the names and addresses of all parties to, each prior sale, purchase, or trade, and any other information as appropriate."

If government inspectors find that a food item is not in compliance, they may force producers to cease distribution, recall the item or confiscate it.

"If the postal service can track a package from my office in Washington to my office in Cincinnati, we should be able to do the same for food products," Sen. Brown said in a Sept. 4, 2008, statement. "Families that are struggling with the high cost of groceries should not also have to worry about the safety of their food. This legislation gives the government the resources it needs to protect the public."

Recalls of contaminated food are usually voluntary; however, in his weekly radio address on March 15, President Obama announced he's forming a Food Safety Working Group to propose new laws and stop corruption of the nation's food.

The group will review, update and enforce food safety laws, which Obama said "have not been updated since they were written in the time of Teddy Roosevelt."

The president said outbreaks from contaminated foods, such as a recent salmonella outbreak among consumers of peanut products, have occurred more frequently in recent years due to outdated regulations, fewer inspectors, scaled back inspections and a lack of information sharing between government agencies.

"In the end, food safety is something I take seriously, not just as your president but as a parent," Obama said. "No parent should have to worry that their child is going to get sick from their lunch just as no family should have to worry that the medicines they buy will cause them harm."

The blogosphere is buzzing with comments on the legislation, including the following:

    * Obama and his cronies or his puppetmasters are trying to take total control – nationalize everything, disarm the populace, control food, etc. We are seeing the formation of a total police state.

    * Well … that's not very " green " of Obama. What's his real agenda?

    * This is getting way out of hand! Isn't it enough the FDA already allows poisons in our foods?

    * If you're starving, no number of guns will enable you to stay free. That's the whole idea behind this legislation. He who controls the food really makes the rules.

    * The government is terrified of the tax loss. Imagine all the tax dollars lost if people actually grew their own vegetables! Imagine if people actually coordinated their efforts with family, friends and neighbors. People could be in no time eating for the price of their own effort. … Oh the horror of it all! The last thing the government wants is for us to be self-sufficient.

    * They want to make you dependent upon government. I say no way! already the government is giving away taxes from my great great grandchildren and now they want to take away my food, my semi-auto rifles, my right to alternative holistic medicine? We need a revolution, sheeple! Wake up! They want fascism … can you not see that?

    *  The screening processes will make it very expensive for smaller farmers, where bigger agriculture corporations can foot the bill.

    * If anything it just increases accountability, which is arguably a good thing. It pretty much says they'll only confiscate your property if there are questions of contamination and you don't comply with their inspections. I think the severity of this has been blown out of proportion by a lot of conjecture.

    * Don't waste your time calling the criminals in D.C. and begging them to act like humans. This will end with a bloody revolt.

    * The more I examine this (on the surface) seemingly innocuous bill the more I hate it. It is a coward's ploy to push out of business small farms and farmers markets without actually making them illegal because many will choose not to operate due to the compliance issue.

To help educate the people further about how to legally avoid all vaccines, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny has put together a brand new book that is absolutely necessary to have in your possession if you or a loved one don’t want to vaccinate but are not sure how to get around it. As Dr. Tenpenny says on the back cover of her book, “Saying No To Vaccines is not intended to be a balanced view of vaccination literature. Pro-vaccine information is readily accessible through the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC, healthcare and government-sponsored organizations. This book balances the debate.”

Below is a copy of an interview Crusador editor Greg Ciola conducted with Dr. Tenpenny shortly after the release of her new book.  

Crusador:  What was the impetus for writing your new book “Saying NO To Vaccines”?

Parents needed a tool that did their homework for them. The evidence is there to support their decision to not vaccinate; you just have to do a little work to find it. Everyone seems to be so afraid of “bugs” and their potential ability to make us sick. But the reality is that we swim in “bugs” every day and we are not dropping over like flies. The only “bugs” we seem to obsess over are associated with vaccines. Only two generations ago, measles, mumps and chickenpox were normal experiences of childhood. Why we have complete fear of these infections is media and money driven and unfounded.

If the focus of Public Health was on sleep, exercise, clean water and safe, non-GMO food, we would have a healthy society without vaccines…but we would not have billion dollar industries employing millions of people to keep us “healthy.”  The fact is, we are a very UNhealthy society with vaccines, so the Public health and argument that we must vaccinate ‘for greater good’ is a failure.

I put a large body of research into my first book, FOWL! and my two DVDS, documenting the dangers of vaccination. “Saying No To Vaccines” was the next logical step. It answers the question, “I’ve decided not to vaccinate, now what do I do?”

Crusador:  What are some of the issues you cover in the book that aren’t covered in your two DVD’s “Vaccines: The Risks, The Benefits, The Choices” and “Vaccines: What CDC Documents and Science Reveal”?

There is very little overlap between Saying No to Vaccines and the DVDs. The foundational premise of the book is to give answers refuting the 25 most common arguments used to promote vaccination. For example, parents are often told the vaccine-preventable diseases of childhood can be serious and if their child is not vaccinated, their child could die.  I tell them how to refute that argument and give documentation from the medical literature to demonstrate that statement is nothing more than fear mongering.  Parents are told by pediatricians there is “no evidence that vaccination harms the immune system” and there is “no evidence that vaccination can lead to chronic disease.” I used the medical literature to prove the opposite is true.

Crusador:  What are the most common questions you get about vaccines?

The most frequently-asked question I get is about vaccination exemption, meaning, “How do I refuse the vaccine and still get my kids into school or keep my job,” so by design a large part of the book covers exemptions. I included a lot of detail on how to avoid vaccinations for school situations, including college, professional situations where a job may require certain vaccines, if you are in a nursing home, foreign adoption, the military, even if you are incarcerated. I have also included a chapter on frequently- asked questions about vaccination.  Saying No To Vaccines has an entire section on “most frequently asked questions.”

Crusador:  There is a huge divide in this country between those who think you should vaccinate versus those who feel you shouldn’t. The majority is still on the side of thinking that vaccines are THE answer to long-term immunity. When you do speaking engagements or radio interviews or simply talk to a pregnant woman about the need to question the safety of vaccines further, how do you present your information to make someone think twice?

Even though I strongly believe that vaccines cause more harm than the “good” they supposedly do, it is important for people to see the evidence of harm – from a scientific perspective – and not just take my word for it.  All of my information, every slide and every paragraph in my book, is referenced from a highly reputable medical journal or from the Centers for Disease Control, the CDC. People can see for themselves the one-sided, biased view of the vaccine industry, promoting that vaccines are “safe” and “protective.” Almost 100% of the time, once people pull back the veil and see the rest of the story, they know that vaccination is not what the drug companies claim it to be.

Crusador:  Do you feel that there is such a thing as a “safe” vaccine? If there isn’t, how do you counter the mainstream medical mentality that vaccines may not be entirely without risks, but those risks are far less than the risks we would face without vaccines at all?

I really felt that parents needed strong answers for when they decided to not vaccinate.  Very few people are willing to say something. The risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of the disease. The “Green Our Vaccines” movement was partially behind the reason I wrote this book.  Many activists, people with very good intentions, hedge and put their support behind “safer” vaccines which are a chemical impossibility. People just need to SAY NO.

Crusador:  Tell our readers a little more about the exemption clauses you discuss in your book. The medical establishment has done a terrific job of intimidating people into thinking they have to take vaccines and yet, rarely if ever will you hear about the ways to exempt yourself and family from taking vaccines.

A medical exemption is available in all 50 states but must be recommended by a doctor. The exemption can be difficult to obtain and often, it only excuses future vaccination with a shot that has already caused a severe reaction.

There are three exemptions available in this country – medical, religious and philosophical. As of now, 19 states accept a philosophical exemption. It is the easiest of the three to use. You request a form from the school nurse, state the reasons you don’t want to vaccinate your child, sign it and give it to the school. Generally, that’s it. However, different school systems have different rules. Some require the form annually, some require both parents to sign the exemption form, some require it to be notarized and so forth.  You can find links to your state laws and more information by going to www.DrTenpenny.com .

Religious exemptions are available in all other states except West Virginia and Mississippi (which only have medical exemptions). Religious exemptions can be tricky and in some states, very difficult to obtain and defend. I often recommend that people consult an attorney for this type of exemption.  Some states, such as New York and New Jersey, are difficult. New York has been known to use something called a “sincerity test.”  Parents are literally interrogated by an attorney representing the school district regarding how sincere their religious assertions are for refusing a vaccine. A panel then decides if you are sincere enough in your beliefs to allow you to refuse vaccination on religious ground. I find these tactics absolutely appalling and akin to Inquisitioners of the Middle Ages.

Crusador:  Where do you see the whole pro-vaccine movement going and what threats to our Constitutional freedoms do you see coming down the pike?

The dogged determination of those who oppose vaccines, and in particular mandatory vaccination, has gained traction at a grass roots level and garnered a lot of attention from the media.  I feel that we have the pro-vaccinators on the ropes. Our arguments are hard to deny and the global autism epidemic can no longer be ignored. Pro-vaccinators are using manipulation, threats and fear tactics, trying to convince everyone that vaccines are not only safe but absolutely necessary.  I see the vaccine industry like a wounded Tyrannosaurus Rex, gnashing its teeth and flailing its ugly head. It won’t die quickly and it will probably get worse before it gets better.

Crusador:  There are many people in this country, myself included, who are concerned that there is an evil agenda to mass vaccinate the entire planet in the event of a health emergency. Do you feel that there are genuine reasons to be concerned and what might we expect to see unfold in an emergency?

Executive orders and recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have been written that stop just short of allowing government-enforced mandatory vaccination for anthrax, smallpox and bird flu.  The only way to change these policies is by standing together and boldly saying no.

Crusador:  Are you still confident that with enough knowledge about the risks and dangers of vaccines enough people will wake up and say NO before Big Pharma forces its will upon the populace?

I’m not sure.  People tend to be sheep – Americans in particular. Look what we have allowed a small number in the White House and 545 people in Congress to do to our country.  And even those people who want to effect a change have little time and few resources to do so.  No one wants to stand out, speak up and challenge authority. Whatever happened to those bra-burning activists of the 1960s? However, people really are involved now, more than ever. It only takes a small, vocal minority to really make a difference. As stated years ago by Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has.”

Crusador:  Thank you for your time, Sherri. These are excellent answers. I encourage everyone reading this interview to make every effort they can to get a copy of your new book and share it with their friends and loved ones because it is a great tool to give the average person confidence to “SAY NO TO VACCINES”.

Thank you, Greg for helping me get this message out to more people.

Purchase Utopia Silver