USDA Drops Glyphosate Testing Plans, Makes Monsanto’s Life Easier

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is no longer planning to test samples of corn syrup for glyphosate residue. Plans to test for the herbicide were coordinated between the USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency and scheduled to begin in April of this year.

The cancellation of this program is good news for Monsanto. The company is currently embroiled in litigation, with plaintiffs in the case alleging that Roundup caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The extent of the EPA’s involvement in the lawsuit is not known, although the federal judge presiding over the case has indicated he is likely to subpoena the chair of the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee. Regardless of the lawsuit, the decision by the USDA to drop scheduled glyphosate testing is disheartening and further erodes their food integrity credibility.

Agencies in Disarray

The USDA’s failure to properly test for glyphosate residue is baffling. The agency’s reasons for not testing for the world’s most used pesticide center around that process being too expensive and inefficient. If that argument sounds familiar, that’s because it echoes Monsanto’s own thoughts on glyphosate tests. The Food and Drug Administration doesn’t necessarily agree. Last year they set in motion a testing program that found glyphosate in every sample of honey tested. Launched in February, it was indefinitely suspended by November.

When Demand Isn’t Enough

Europe and Canada have glyphosate testing programs in place, with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency planning to release their findings in the near future. This is the most used herbicide in the world, with over 250 million pounds of it used in the U.S. every year. Any layperson looking for it has only to walk into the nearest supermarket, restaurant, or convenience store. But we don’t know for sure, although we definitely want to.

The entire motivation behind the FDA’s short-lived was public demand. The American public and the U.S Government Accountability Office both have issues with the current ill-advised and unsustainable system. For a brief, shining period the USDA got it. The taxpayer need and demand for testing didn’t change. So what did?

Related Reading:
Sources:



How Health Affects Body Odor

What do people smell like? If you live in a developed country, your answer is likely to mention a perfume or a soap or some variation of a product designed to keep people from smelling. The modern person is terrified of smelling “bad.” The personal care market in the U.S. is projected to take advantage of this fear to the tune of 11 billion in revenue by 2018. But these products merely cover up the way we smell. None of them address or fix the way we smell.

Why Do We Smell?

We smell because of our bacteria.  The sweat produced by the apocrine glands at our armpits, genital area, and other select body locations is largely odorless until it’s broken down by our bacteria into thioalcohols. These thioalcohols are sulfur based compounds, which helps explain why some people smell strongly of onions or garlic. Scientists have identified the bacteria that breaks down into largest amount of thioalcohols, Staphylococcus hominis, but they aren’t sure about the role of the other bacteria on the skin.

Smells are incredibly useful in ways we aren’t even aware of and don’t fully understand. Smells help you recognize family, find a mate or partner, and identify stress or potential danger. In the face of stress, signals from the nose change the way you react to visual cues. The sensitivity to negative facial expressions, for example, increases when the nose smells stress signals. The nearness to stress signals also increases the body’s startle reflex and instinctively causes us to avoid or withdraw from the stressful smell. If you’re a lady, smells can also influence your monthly cycle. Women who smell signals from other women in the ovulatory stage of their cycle are more likely to experience lengthened menstrual cycles.

Smells and Your Health

Sick people have a different odor. Dogs know it. An organization called “Medical Detection Dogs in the U.K.” is using dogs and their noses to detect early warning signs of both prostate and breast cancer. Dogs can also smell changes in blood sugar levels. While humans may not be able to smell illness on that level, unhealthy smells do register. Researchers in Sweden elicited an immune response in volunteers to see if the smell of the response could be detected later. Those who smelled both the T-shirts worn by the volunteers experiencing the immune response and an unworn T-shirt reported that the worn shirt smelled less healthy and less pleasant.

The body gives off multiple warning smells for a variety of conditions. Since your smell is determined by your bacteria, and bacteria determines your overall health, paying attention to these smells can serve as an early warning system. The type and location of the smells can tip you off as to potential health issues.

A persistent sweet or fruity smell in the mouth can be a sign that the body is releasing large amounts of ketones, a sign of diabetes. On the other side of the smell spectrum, “bad” breath smells can indicate that the body is having difficulties processing out toxins properly, releasing them through the mouth instead.

Smells in the groin area, while potentially embarrassing, can also be excellent indicators of a health issue. Pee that smells like ammonia could indicate a urinary tract infection. Especially strong fishy or musty smells are evidence of a bacterial infection, although the actual infection could run the gamut from various sexually transmitted diseases to yeast or Gardnerella infections. Most people have a subtle smell down there, but noticing a stronger than usual musty, fishy, or sour smell allows you to do something about it, like ramping up the cranberry lemonade and the raw veggies and cutting back on the sugar (see Detox Cheap and Easy).

Now let’s talk some shit. While there are lots of caveats and exceptions, for the most part, how gross a bathroom smells after a #2 is dropped is indicative of how poor one’s health is.

Related: Natural Cure for Yeast Infection

Smell also plays a role in how other people perceive you. We’re subconsciously able to smell and identify immune responses. We’re more attracted to the smell of a healthy person. People are more inclined to identify with or seek out a person who smells healthy.

The Impact of Deodorant

If smells tell us so much, why do we cover them up? Because we’ve been conditioned to be terrified of the way we smell. Early deodorant advertising campaigns capitalized on the fear of rejection, first telling women they couldn’t get a man due to their smelly underarms and later convincing men their smell was unprofessional. Deodorants and other scented personal care items are considered a must in the modern world.

There is the distinct possibility that the products that make us smell acceptable in society actually damage our bodies. The lymphatic vessels that enable the spread of breast cancer are located in the armpit where aluminum and paraben-laden deodorants are applied. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin. Parabens are known to have estrogen-like effects and encourage cells in the breast to grow and split. Deodorant may not be the cause of cancer, but an overloaded and toxic lymphatic system is never going to result in good things.

In addition to exacerbating health issues, deodorants wipe out defenses. They don’t discriminate; they kill both the smelly and the beneficial bacteria. Matters are not helped by the increasingly sterile environment we live in, where antibacterial soaps and handwashes ensure that good bacteria is gone before it has a chance to do anything.

Related: How To Make Your Own Natural Deodorant at Home – Recipe

Making Better Choices

Nothing is going to improve your smell like eating well. Upon hearing that bacteria is the reason you smell, it’s easy to want to get rid of it for causing bad smells, but the flip side is the important part. The bacteria causes the good smells, too, and that can be cultivated. A diet consisting of mostly organic, fresh, raw produce with minimally processed food and refined sugars will feed beneficial bacteria. Better bacteria leads to better body odor. Products with aluminum and parabens kill all of that good bacteria and leach into the body, disrupting the body’s working and potentially leading to serious disease. Reading labels and choosing better products or making your own chemical-free products are solutions that will not only leave you smelling better, you’ll feel better.

The Smelly One

No one wants to be the smelly one. But the definition of smell can be relative, as someone who is used to the natural, healthy smell of the body will find perfumes and scented deodorants overwhelming. These products will also never be able to completely mask the body’s natural signals, leaving the user to forever bandage a wound that won’t close.

It all comes back to the bacteria. Treat your microbes right, and you just might save a lot of money on colognes and antiperspirants. And if somebody ever says about you, “He thinks his shit don’t stink!” you can know with confidence that it probably smells a lot better than theirs. Check out the recommended reading below for more on your microbes.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:



B Vitamins Can Offset Damage From Air Pollutions

Billions of people are exposed to dangerous fine particulate matter, known as PM2.5, from diesel fumes, wood burning stoves, and chemical reactions between other polluting gasses. PM2.5 particles are incredibly tiny, with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers. They can lodge deep in the lungs and cause heart and lung problems, and they are thought to alter genes associated with the immune system. How do you protect yourself against something with that has the ability to change your DNA? You take B vitamins.

Researchers in the U.S. discovered that four weeks of B vitamin supplementation limited the PM2.5 effects by 28-76% at ten gene locations. Though limited by their small sample size and the high doses of B vitamins in the study, scientists nevertheless saw a connection. The B vitamins made a difference both in epigenetic changes and on a mitochondrial level.

Looking for B Vitamins

B vitamins give us our energy. They provide essential support for neurotransmitters and nerve tissue. The specific B vitamins used in this study were B6, folic acid (or B9), and B12. The inclusion of folic acid and B12 is especially interesting as they are some of the building blocks involved in repairing DNA, and they are involved in the metabolism of every cell in the body. Despite common fear that if you have the gene for something you automatically get it, the body can be influenced. Genes change.

Gun Seeks Magic Bullet

So the question becomes how do we get enough B vitamins to offset that pollution, to support all of those essential processes in the body, and to keep our genes intact or improve them? While we can produce B vitamins in the gut, it doesn’t happen without the right foods or the right gut environment. Fresh, organic vegetables and fruits replenish B vitamins, but the amount of nutrition to be found in our food is declining overall. There’s also the issue of assimilation. A digestive system that isn’t working properly won’t be able to use those vitamins to their best effect. The good news there? Maintaining the same produce rich way of eating that provides and creates B vitamins is the best way to have a healthy digestive system.

Related Products:
Related Reading:
Sources:



Monsanto Might Be in Big Trouble

Monsanto is currently embroiled in a lawsuit from farmers claiming that glyphosate caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, contradicting the EPA’s finding that the chemical is “…not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” On Tuesday, documents from the case were unsealed, including an internal email exchange at Monsanto that implies they wrote portions of EPA studies on the herbicide. According to one email, “…we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak…” Another email specifically mentions portions of studies that would be ghostwritten by Monsanto employees, as opposed to regulatory agencies.

Suspect Everyone

Federal judge Vince Chhabria, who is based in Northern California and is overseeing the litigation against the company, has indicated that, “My reaction is when you consider the relevance of the EPA’s reports, and you consider their relevance to this litigation, it seems appropriate to take Jess Rowland’s deposition…” Previous documents released in the case included a letter from a long-time EPA employee, alleging that Rowland and other colleagues played “political, conniving games with the science to favor the registrants.” Other emails directly from Rowland indicated that he would quash another assessment of glyphosate from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, among other things. Rowland’s testimony will be key for the plaintiff, as his time as the chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee coincides with the release of the EPA memo that disputes the World Health Organization’s classification of glyphosate as probably carcinogenic. A subpoena will likely be necessary to interview Rowland, as he has declined a previous, voluntary request.

The EPA is also concerned about their standing in this lawsuit. Raven M. Norris, the attorney representing them this case,  stated, “The agency has legitimate concerns about being pulled into private litigation…They want to be able to maintain their impartiality.” If the already released documents are any indication, impartiality is already off the table. They are left fighting for plausible deniability.

Monsanto has maintained its defense of glyphosate, and Bill Heydens, one of the alleged ghostwriters, has given sworn testimony about his original emails, claiming, “It was things like editing relatively minor things, editing for formatting, just for clarity, really just for overall readability to make it easier for people to read in a more organized fashion…”. Rowland will hopefully provide the other side of that conversation, but it is likely his testimony will protect the company.

A Vulnerable Position for the Agricultural Giant

Complaints and studies against Monsanto and glyphosate have been piling up for quite some time now. While the WHO has reclassified the chemical after extensive research, the U.S. regulators have lagged behind with a different script. The EPA may be able to claim that they were unaware of this manipulation, though plaintiff attorneys have suggested that the EPA “may be unaware of Monsanto’s deceptive authorship practices.” But there really isn’t a good position here. If Rowland implicates Monsanto and saves the EPA, Monsanto’s $66 million dollar merger with Bayer might be in jeopardy. If Rowland follows the money (history indicates probably) or martyrs himself, the EPA looks incompetent. For the rest of us, we’ll get a better picture of who is pulling the strings when this case is decided.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:



Should Patient Groups Not Required to Disclose Funding From Pharmaceutical Companies

A new study has found that more than 80% of patient advocacy groups receive funding from drug and medical device companies. The study looked at 104 of the top patient advocacy nonprofits. Combined, they report more than 7.5 million dollars in revenue in 2014, with a wide discrepancy in the way that these companies reported their donations. Patient advocacy groups exist to provide the support and information needed to navigate the modern medical system, but why are their own conflicts of interest not one of the things they disclose?

The Ties that Bind

Patient advocacy is a growing profession in the United States. Insurance companies, government, medical professionals, and the pharmaceutical industry all have fingers in the healthcare pie. People can get overwhelmed by all of the red tape and can be subjected to less than ideal care. The benefit of a health advocate is having someone focused on your needs without the conflict of an employer or any other commercial interest. But while patient advocacy on a small scale can provide incredible personal benefits, health advocacy as a whole has strong ties to the pharmaceutical and medical device community. Nearly forty percent of the organizations reviewed in this study had an industry member seated on their board.

Who Watches the Watchmen

There are times when these ties damage the recipients of service that the health advocacy groups list in their mission statements. Many of these groups have been silent on the issue of rising drug prices or disclosing their funding sources in court proceedings. The lack of disclosure also allows other businesses to take advantage of the altruistic framework of health advocacy and use it to confuse the public, like the Global Energy Balance Network set up by Coca-Cola in 2014. Advocacy groups aren’t entirely funded by pharmaceutical companies, but without a standard of disclosure, is there any way to know exactly how much influence those companies have?

Being Informed

Professional health and patient advocacy is a relatively new profession. There are no licenses or accreditations required to be a patient advocate. Combine that lack of oversight with the lack of disclosure and there is a system ripe for behind the scenes manipulation. The good that these groups can do, especially when it comes to negotiating with insurers, needs to be carefully weighed against their reluctance and even inability to speak out against harmful pharmaceutical and medical device practices. Now more than ever, you are your best health care advocate. Being informed about medical issues and options is the best weapon in your arsenal.

Sources:



Monsanto Wants the Omega-3 Fatty Acids Market

What’s the next phase in omega-3 fatty acid supplementation? If biotechnology and agricultural trading giants like Monsanto, Dow Chemical, and Cargill have anything to say about it, the future is soy and canola.

There is no way to meet the demand we currently have for fish oil.Peru, the world’s leader in fish oil and fish meal production, had a banner year in 2016, getting the highest recorded average price per metric ton. But those record numbers come at a time when production levels have declined 61% from the previous year. The production levels aren’t likely to improve either, as the United Nations reports 90% of the world’s fish are fully or partially overfished. Farm-raised fish are unlikely to be a good source of Omega-3s as they themselves are frequently fed other fish oils to boost their health. We are approaching the point where a big source for Omega-3s, wild-caught fish, will no longer be available, and farm raised fish currently require supplementation instead of providing it.

The Big Business Solution

The demand for fish oil products has created a 2.4 million dollar market, and many big companies have settled on grains as the solution to the problem left by dwindling fish oil supplies. One of the companies with ambitious plans in this area is Cargill, an agricultural trading company based in Minnesota. In a bid to create a fifth of current fish oil supplies, 159,000 metric tons, they’ve earmarked up to half a million acres of Montana farmland to grow their new strain of canola. Projected to be ready in 2020, the canola will contain long-chain omega-3 fatty acids from algae. Dow Chemicals has also jumped on the canola train, although they plan to grow their canola in Canada.

Monsanto, on the other hand, is sticking with what they know – soy. Soybeans are already a  source of ALA (alpha-linolenic acids), and the company’s plan is to develop a soybean specifically meant to be processed into a soy oil for baked goods and soup. Other companies are launching omega-3 products with algae. Archer Daniels Midland in Chicago, a commodities trading and food processing company, created an algae-based product for fish supplementation. TerraVia Holdings Ltd is another company focused on algae, using it to convert sugar into omega-3s.

A Little People Solution

Omega 3 fatty acids are essential to any healthy diet, but other options are out there? Quality fish and fish oil are hard to find and hard to justify from an environmental perspective. Many of the proposed big businesses solutions focus on GMO crops. Both of these options are problematic.

Getting omega-3s in your diet doesn’t have to be all about fish oil. Algae is a great source of omega-3s, and it’s important to get different colors. Green algae like spirulina and chlorella, are a source of EPA. Brown algae like wakame and hijiki are sources of DHA, a key nutrient in supporting a healthy brain. Other vegetable based sources of omega-3s include flax, chia, and nuts, especially walnuts. The acids are also in a number of vegetables like spinach, winter squash, and brussels sprouts, though the amount is much less than what is found in seaweeds, nuts, and seeds.

The World is Not Enough

This is not the only important part of the food chain disappearing. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, close to 75% of plant diversity has been lost. Six different livestock breeds are lost every month. Our gut bacteria has been slowly losing its variety, leaving us more open to disease. From a health viewpoint and an environmental viewpoint, now is the time to look for different, diverse foods. How long will it be before whole nutrients groups disappear from our world like so many plant varieties or members of our gut flora?

Related Reading:
Sources:



Vaccine Schedule – Why the FDA Ignored Mercury Issues For So Long

Regulatory agencies like the FDA and CDC agree with the classification on mercury as a neurotoxin. But it took until 1997 for the Food and Drug Administration, at the prompting of Congress, to finally tally up the total amount of mercury a six-month-old would be exposed to if the 1997 vaccine schedule was followed. The results of that calculation found that the average six-month-old had the potential to be injected with a total of 187.5 micrograms of mercury. In contrast, the FDA’s daily acceptable intake of mercury for an adult is 0.4 micrograms per kilogram of bodyweight. The FDA has known about the cumulative levels of mercury in childhood vaccines for over 20 years, and yet they still acknowledge that many childhood vaccines contain trace amounts (less than 1 microgram) of thimerosal, and certain inactivated influenza vaccines can contain up to 50 micrograms of thimerosal.

What You Do When You Realize Something Wrong

By any calculation, the level of mercury in childhood vaccines is too high. So why hasn’t it been removed from vaccines? New documents from FDA officials have discovered that the justification for the continued presence of thimerosal has less to do with safety and more to do with image. In an email from Dr. Peter Patriarca, Director, Division of Viral Products, Food and Drug to an official at the CDC, he discussed the impact of removing thimerosal from vaccines in a timely fashion, saying it would:

…raise questions about FDA being ‘asleep at the switch’ for decades by allowing a potentially hazardous compound to remain in many childhood vaccines, and not forcing manufacturers to exclude it from new products.

It will also raise questions about various advisory bodies regarding aggressive recommendations for use. We must keep in mind that the dose of ethylmercury was not generated by “rocket science.” Conversion of the percentage of thimerosal to actual micrograms of mercury involves ninth grade algebra. What took the FDA so long to do the calculations? Why didn’t the CDC and the advisory bodies do these calculations when they rapidly expanded the childhood immunization schedule?”

Equally as distressing as the FDA’s decision to hide culpability is what they’re sacrificing in pursuit of that decision. A press release in 1999 maintained that there wasn’t evidence that vaccines containing thimerosal caused any harm. It also maintained there was no reason to measure mercury exposure in children who received those vaccines, effectively ensuring that that evidence would not materialize anytime soon. In additional justification, public documents released by the FDA measured mercury exposure as if children were only exposed to a small amount of mercury each day through vaccines.

This is in stark contrast to the reality of the situation, where mercury exposure spikes at four specific times: at birth and at well baby (oh the irony!) check-ups at 2, 4, and 6 months. Since that release in 1999, the FDA has made an effort to lower the levels of thimerosal in childhood vaccines. Many still contain trace amounts, though, and the flu vaccine, recommended annually starting at 6 months, seems to be exempt from these reduction efforts thus far.

When Safeguards Are Not Safe

Vaccines are often sold as the best thing you can do for your baby. Yet the people who regulate these vaccines are not inclined to look at them critically. It took Congress requiring a list of intentionally introduced mercury compounds before the organization that regulates them took stock of exactly how much mercury children receive through childhood vaccines. The FDA then presented the data on a six-month average, instead of the four one-time spikes that actually occur and specifically said that testing mercury exposure is not necessary. Why are the vaccines considered necessary when safety checks and studies are not?

Recommended Reading:
Sources: