Missouri is the first state in the U.S. to ban the word “meat” on faux meat products like garden burgers and Tofurky. Using the term “plant-based meats,” and “vegan faux-meat” can find the business owner in jail for up to a year. This law was brought to you by The Missouri Cattlemen’s Association.

The legislation defines meat as ‘any edible portion of livestock or poultry carcass or part thereof’ and requires that any labeled meat product is derived ‘in whole or in part, from livestock or poultry.’ Violators of this definition will henceforth be subject to up to one year in prison and fines of up to $1,000.” – Forbe’s

Must Read: Meat and Dairy Industry On Course To Contribute More Global pollution Than OIL Companies

The law will also apply to “clean meat” which is produced by growing and multiplying cells in a lab. Animal rights organizations and environmental groups aren’t keen on the new law. It’s estimated that if we switched to eating lab-grown meat, we would cut agriculture emissions by 96%.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4nL_NtunKU

Must Read: FDA Commissioner to Issue New Non-Dairy Milk Guidelines

Missouri is the first state but not likely the last. The American beef industry has been lobbying to get “meat” banned from vegetable-based products for years, and meat industries want the ban to be nationwide.

The industry has cause for concern. TreeHugger says,

Americans ate 20 percent less beef in 2014 than they did in 2005. Veggie meat substitutes, by contrast, are a growing industry. And who knows what’ll happen when lab-based meats start making it into grocery stores.”

We’ve all heard many times that a glass of wine a day is good for you. Improbable, considering what alcohol does to the gut, but study after study seemed to verify alcohol’s heart-health benefits. The only problem was that the studies never actually said that moderate alcohol consumption is healthy. In fact, most studies simply pointed to potential benefits of red wine, and the studies were flawed in many ways, but the news ran with the idea that a regular drink is good for us because this is what most of us wanted to believe.

How Industry Corrupts Science

One recent study was attempting to lay the doubts to rest and confirm that a drink or two a day was, in fact, beneficial to our health. The problem is that this study was funded by the alcohol industry.

One of the many problems with previous alcohol studies is that if you compare a group of people who only drink a moderate amount to people who don’t drink you’re comparing people with restraint to people who may or may not have restraint with other lifestyle choices. A person who only has one glass of wine a day is likely going to have more willpower than the average person. For instance, maybe many members of the non-drinking control group don’t like alcohol but instead smokes and eats junk food all day.

A proper study on the effects of alcohol would randomly assign one group of people to drink a moderate amount while they assign another group of people to abstain. This is tough to do with a large enough control group, but in 2013 the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), set out to do just that. The Moderate Alcohol and Cardiovascular Health study was poised to be a breakthrough in public health. The 10-year, $100 million government trial is now underway.

The NIH is said to be one of the world’s foremost medical research centers. it’s a federal agency that invests more than $30 billion of taxpayer money into health research yearly. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism is an agency under NIH  that oversees the alcohol industry.

The idea is to pay thousands of people to drink in four continents. This amounted to 3,500 daily drinks for six years. The math proved to be incredibly expensive. NIH decided to rely on the alcohol industry to foot the bill. In October of 2017 Wired reported that,

Five corporations—Anheuser-Busch InBev, Diageo, Pernod Ricard, Heineken, and Carlsberg—have since provided a total of $67 million. The foundation is seeking another $23 million, according to its director of development, Julie Wolf-Rodda.”

In May of 2018, The New York Times published a scathing report that showed the NIH’s ties to the alcohol industry. The article opens with:

It was going to be a study that could change the American diet, a huge clinical trial that might well deliver all the medical evidence needed to recommend a daily alcoholic drink as part of a healthy lifestyle.

That was how two prominent scientists and a senior federal health official pitched the project during a presentation at the luxurious Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Fla., in 2014. And the audience members who were being asked to help pay for the $100 million study seemed receptive: They were all liquor company executives.

The Times article reported that documents and interviews proved that the NIH courted the alcohol industry with a plan to endorse moderate drinking as healthy. The alcohol industry previewed the trial design and was allowed to vet the researchers.

Besides the industry influence, two other major problems with the study include the fact that the study is too short to see increases in cancers and other health issues that could be linked to alcohol consumption and too many people are excluded from the study. People are not allowed to partake in the study if they have never had a drink or have a history of addiction, psychiatric care, liver problems, kidney problems, and certain cancers.

You’re picking off the people who are most likely to have the harms.” – Dr. Richard Saitz, chair of the Department of Community Health Sciences at Boston University

Incidentally, research has shown that alcohol consumption in any amount increases the risk of breast cancer.

A month after the Times article was published Stat News published an article titled, NIH rejected a study of alcohol advertising while pursuing industry funding for other research.

…at the 2015 meeting the director, George Koob, would leap out of his seat and scream at the scientists after their PowerPoint presentation on research the agency had eagerly funded on the association between alcohol marketing and underage drinking. ‘I don’t fucking care!’ Koob yelled, referring to alcohol advertising, according to the scientists.

Fortunately, thanks to all of the journalist reporting on this corrupt clinical trial, NIH terminated it last June.

A New Study Not Funded By Big Alcohol

It may not be wise to put any credence into a vaccination study funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, but they aren’t tied to the alcohol industry. The Lancet has just published a study stating that all alcohol consumption is a health risk, moderate or not.

The Global Burden of Disease study looked at alcohol consumption in 195 countries between 1990 and 2016 and analyzed data or people ranging in age from 15 to 95. Researchers compared people who completely abstained from alcohol to those who had one alcoholic drink per day and to people who drank more.

With the non-drinking group, 914 people out of 100,000 developed an alcohol-related health problem such as cancer or suffered an injury. An extra four people would suffer an alcohol-related health problem or injury if they drank one alcoholic drink a day.

For people who had two alcoholic drinks a day, 63 more developed a condition within a year and for those who consumed five drinks every day, there was an increase of 338 people, who developed a health problem. Two alcoholic drinks a day equated to 63 more people developing a health condition, and five drinks every day increased the number of people who developed a health problem to 338.

The study reports:

Alcohol use is a leading risk factor for global disease burden and causes substantial health loss. We found that the risk of all-cause mortality, and of cancers specifically, rises with increasing levels of consumption, and the level of consumption that minimises health loss is zero.”

To an individual, the one drink a day idea doesn’t look like much statistically but keep in mind, the study is looking at one year. It’s taking into account people’s drinking habits and health within one year’s time. This does not represent the likelihood that one may be diagnosed with cancer after drinking a glass of wine every day for a decade. It’s near certain that the longer one drinks regularly the greater the risk of adverse health effects. In addition, Prof Sonia Saxena points out that while, “One drink a day does represent a small increased risk but adjust that to the UK population as a whole and it represents a far bigger number, and most people are not drinking just one drink a day.”

Conclusion

Alcohol has a few health benefits, but this doesn’t make it healthy. Every health benefit alcohol can provide is better achieved through diet and exercise. To put it bluntly, nobody who suffers from chronic disease can get well while consuming alcohol.

Our biggest concern with alcohol consumption is that it severely disrupts the gut flora. Beneficial bacteria gets killed and washed away, as well as pathogenic microbes, but guess what gets left behind. Yeast. It’s incredibly difficult to kill Candida spores. Alcohol irritates the gut lining and harms the healthy gut microbiome. Then it raises blood sugar, and Candida is left to flourish in its wake. For more on how this works, check out Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections.

Electromagnetic Radiation From Power Lines and Cell Towers Disorientates Birds, Insects, Affects Plant Health

EKLIPSE is a UK based organization that aims to, “…improve the integration of emerging issues into policy development related to or impacting on biodiversity and ecosystem services.” The Telegraph reports that the nonprofit research group analyzed 97 studies and came to the conclusion that radiation from power lines, wi-fi, broadcast transmitters, and cellular towers pose a “credible risk” to wildlife and also degrades plant health. They warn that the upcoming 5G rollout could cause greater harm.

Animals including birds, mammals, insects and many others use the earth’s geomagnetic field as a magnetic compass. The EKLIPSE report showed that the magnetic orientation of birds, insects, spiders, and other animals including mammals can be disrupted by electromagnetic radiation. The report also established that these radiations also have an adverse effect on plant metabolism.

The report stated that “…serious impacts on the environment could not be ruled out.” They are asking for 5G transmitters to be placed away from areas where placement is likely to harm wildlife. The UK charity Buglife, after reviewing the report, is suggesting that 5g transmitters not be placed near LED street lamps, due to the fact that these lights attract insects and would thereby increase their exposure to the radiation.

The authors of the review concluded that there is

…an urgent need to strengthen the scientific basis of the knowledge on EMR and their potential impacts on wildlife.

… In particular, there is a need to base future research on sound, high-quality, replicable experiments so that credible, transparent and easily accessible evidence can inform society and policy-makers to make decisions and frame their policies.”

Matt Shardlow, CEO of Buglife, brought up a very good point:

We apply limits to all types of pollution to protect the habitability of our environment, but as yet, even in Europe, the safe limits of electromagnetic radiation have not been determined, let alone applied.”

This isn’t the first report on potential dangers with Electromagnetic Radiation.

A study from 2010 suggested that this electromagnetic radiation may be accelerating or causing a decline of certain animal and insect populations.

In the mid-1990s the cell phone industry commissioned a comprehensive research group called Wireless Technology Research to study cell phone health concerns. Dr. George Carlo oversaw the research. The commission started to reveal that there were serious health concerns with cell phone usage and then the industry decided to bury the results.

Researchers have been sounding the alarm for years.

The main health concern with electromagnetic radiation emitted by smart meters and other wireless technologies is that EMF and RF cause a breakdown in the communication between cells in the body, interrupting DNA repair and weakening tissue and organ function. These are the findings of Dr. George Carlo, who oversaw a comprehensive research group commissioned by the cell phone industry in the mid-1990s.” – James F. Tracy

In his continued effort to make America great again, Donald Trump is bringing back asbestos.

Asbestos is a mineral fiber with a lot of qualities desirable for manufacturing. It’s an excellent heat insulator, it dampens sound, and it is fire-resistant, strong, and inexpensive. It also causes cancer. Many studies have confirmed it.

It also causes cancer. Asbestos exposure is the only known cause of mesothelioma, a deadly form of lung cancer that is known to be extremely painful. Asbestos exposure is also linked to other lung diseases. Many studies have confirmed this. Thousands of lawsuits have been won against asbestos companies. In the last thirty years, seventy billion dollars has been spent on asbestos litigation, and more than seventy companies have been driven into bankruptcy because of said litigation. The Environmental Working Group estimates that 12,000 to 15,000 people die yearly in the U.S. from asbestos exposure, but other studies indicate that asbestos could be responsible for 40,000 deaths per year in the U.S. If you find asbestos in your home the EPA strongly recommends that you hire a professional to remove the asbestos. They come in with hazmat suits and respirators.  More than 60 countries have banned the use of asbestos. In the U.S. Here, the EPA only banned some uses of the material but all uses.

Despite all of this, Trump likes asbestos.

There is no new research disputing the health effects of asbestos, but regardless, Trump’s EPA wants to expand the legal uses for Asbestos. Can you guess why? One hint. Russia.

Uralasbest, a Russian mining firm, placed a seal with Trump’s face on their asbestos products. On their Facebook page, they posted their appreciation:

https://www.facebook.com/Uralasbest/posts/531137150617873

The translation reads:

Donald is on our side!

The combine “Uralasbest” produced an unusual batch of chrysotile: on the packaging of pallets with a mineral there is a stamp

“Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States”. In this unusual way, the workers of the combine’s asbestos-processing plant thanked US President Donald Trump for his words in defense of chrysotile-asbestos.

He supported the head of the US Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt, who stated that his agency would no longer deal with the negative effects that could potentially result from products containing asbestos. Donald Trump supported the specialist and called asbestos “100 percent safe after use.”

“We came out with the initiative to support our chrysotile industry in this way and remind that our” mountain flax “is an important mineral for the whole world. The management has approved! “, They told in the factory.

The EPA declined to ban uses of asbestos that have already been abandoned by industry. They also put forth a “significant new use rule,” or SNUR, that requires manufacturers to notify and seek approval from the EPA before resuming asbestos production and uses.

According to environmental advocates, this new rule gives chemical companies the upper hand in creating new uses for such harmful products in the United States. In May, the EPA released a report detailing its new framework for evaluating the risk of its top prioritized substances. The report states that the agency will no longer consider the effect or presence of substances in the air, ground, or water in its risk assessments.” – The Architects Newspaper

The EPA is ignoring specific exposures to asbestos in the safety assessments, which is reportedly in violation of law, and they are disregarding the safety risks from asbestos that still lingers in old schools, homes, and building materials just about everywhere in the U.S.

The EPA has also eliminated many kinds of asbestos from the FDA’s definition of asbestos.

Recommended:

• Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections
• Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones
• Best Supplements To Kill Lyme and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Lyme Disease

Johnson’s doctors testified that he is probably not going to live past 2020. Johnson is 46. He worked for a California county school system where he reportedly applied the weed killer up to 30 times per year for pest-control.

This was the first lawsuit to make it to trial that alleges that glyphosate does cause cancer. Monsanto was recently bought by Bayer AG for $65 billion. The German conglomerate faces more than 5,000 similar lawsuits in the United States.

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

The jury awarded Dewayne Johnson $39 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages. Dwayne was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in October of 2014, and with a “more aggressive form of the cancer” in March 2015.

BREAKING: Monsanto didn't adequately warn of the danger of weed killer Roundup and must pay $289 million to a man who claims it caused his terminal cancer, a California jury says. https://t.co/qb6Q0dxhLH

— The Associated Press (@AP) August 10, 2018

Monsanto says that decades of scientific studies have shown glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, to be safe for human use. But studies, including a brand new one, show otherwise:

Exposure to environmentally relevant doses of a glyphosate-based herbicide during pregnancy has been found not only to impair female fertility in rats…Argentinian researchers tested the glyphosate-based herbicide – one commonly used in Argentina – in pregnant female rats at two doses, which were added to their food. The rats were mated and dosed from the 9th day after conception until their pups were weaned. This first generation of offspring and their offspring in turn (second generation) were followed and monitored for reproductive effects.”

Johnson’s case was filed in 2016. The case was fast-tracked for trial due to the severity of his cancer.

Within the next few decades, Big Meat and Big Dairy will surpass Big Oil for climate pollution, according to a new study by the non-profits GRAIN and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. The jointly published study quantified emissions from 35 of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies.

The non-profit researches analyzed 35 of the meat and dairy industry’s biggest companies. The researchers warned that meat and dairy companies will overtake oil firms as the world’s biggest polluters. The authors of the study say that factory meat and dairy farms are ‘majorly overlooked climate culprits.

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

According to the report, the five largest meat and dairy corporations—JBS, Tyson, Cargill, Dairy Farmers of America, and Fonterra—are already responsible for more annual greenhouse gas emissions than ExxonMobil, Shell, or BP.

They also found that businesses did a poor job reporting their emissions and targets, and many failed to report emissions entirely or excluded supply chain figures, which amount to 80 to 90 percent of total emissions.

Watch the video below to see how the meat industry could actually help reduce climate change.

Related: Stop Eating Like That and Start Eating Like This – Your Guide to Homeostasis Through Diet

Related:

• FDA Loophole That Allows Farmers To Administer Antibiotics Indefinitely
• The US Has a 2.5 Billion-pound Surplus of Meat and A 1.39 Billion-pound Surplus of Cheese

Antibiotics benefit farmers by speeding up the time it takes livestock to be ready for slaughter. Cows and chickens and other livestock grow faster with antibiotic use than they would otherwise. For cattle, the time from birth to slaughter can be cut in half. But antibiotic resistance is a growing public health concern.  Antibiotic-resistant bacteria like e.coli can be pathogenic to humans and even deadly. Farm water runoff and animal waste are damaging our ecosystems in a myriad of ways. Consequently, in 2017 the FDA was compelled to act.

The C.D.C. states that 23,000 Americans die each year due to antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections and they estimate that more than 400,000 United States residents become ill with infections caused by antibiotic-resistant food-borne bacteria every year. They believe that one in five of these antibiotic-resistant infections may be caused by pathogens from food and animals.

Recommended: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

In 2017, the Food and Drug Administration enacted rules that prohibited antibiotics from being used for growth promotion in livestock. Previously these antibiotics could be purchased over the counter but the new rules require a prescription from a veterinarian.

Despite the ban, it’s widely believed that ranchers still use antibiotics to speed growth. The F.D.A. rules have a glaring loophole: farmers can use antibiotics for disease prevention.

You don’t even need a sick animal in the herd to use antibiotics in the feed and water as long as the justification is ‘disease prevention’ not ‘growth promotion,’ ” Avinash Kar, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council

More in-depth reading: Antibiotics in Meat Could Be Damaging Our Guts & New Report Tracks Rise of Antibiotic Resistance in Humans and Livestock

Our health depends on our gut’s ecosystem. Antibiotics, vaccinations, glyphosate, and GMOs are known to disrupt the bacteria in our gut. If you eat meat, we recommend careful consideration regarding who your buy meat from.

Related Reading:

• We Consume Livestock Vaccines When We Ingest Meat
• Majority Of Meat Contain Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
• How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering