Trump’s USDA Ends Animal Welfare Laws for Organic Eggs
The Trump administration announced in late December plans to reject humane-treatment regulations of cage-free chickens that were proposed during the previous administration. This reversal doesn’t come as a huge surprise since the USDA repeatedly delayed the enforcement of those regulations.
In April 2016, the National Organic Program, under Obama’s administration, proposed a new rule called the “Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices” (OLPP) rule. The rule would require basic animal welfare for a food producer to receive the organic label. The OLPP rules state that animals need to have the ability to sit, walk, stretch out, and stand up without having to be in contact with another animal or the walls of the enclosure. The animals require year-round access to the outdoors, which has to include space with nature like plants and soil.
The agribusiness industry is generally opposed to OLPP because the proposed rules would have forced chicken factories to make expensive changes. Not surprisingly, animal welfare groups are furious,
The Obama administration’s rules for animal welfare under the National Organic Program set basic, common sense standards that not only alleviated the most egregious suffering of animals, but also aligned the actual standards in the $30 billion organics industry with consumer expectations of how cows, pigs, and chickens are treated.” – Vandhana Bala, general counsel for Mercy for Animals
EPA Is Allowing Use of Unapproved Pesticides – New Study
A report released by the Center for Biological Diversity reveals that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows the use of unapproved pesticides in the case of an emergency. The term emergency is defined in the dictionary as an unforeseen combination of circumstances. Looking at the instances of emergency approval from the EPA though, it’s clear the agency does not see it the same way. This loophole allows farmers to use deliberately unapproved or untested pesticides often without a public review or comment process, deliberating bypassing environmental and safety concerns.
It’s disgusting to see the EPA’s broken pesticide program bending over backward to appease the pesticide industry. These exemptions put people and wildlife at tremendous risk because they allow poisons to be applied in ways that would otherwise be illegal.” – Stephanie Parent, a senior attorney in the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health program
The report particularly highlights sulfoxaflor, a pesticide that was banned for killing bees while still being approved for 78 emergency approvals over the past six years and affecting more than 17.5 million acres of farmland. This pesticide had actually been approved for spraying on cotton, but that approval was canceled by a judge in 2015. That reversal didn’t stop sulfoxaflor from being sprayed on cotton and bee-favorite sorghum through the emergency approval program. The EPA has yet to examine the effect this program has had on pollinators, though that isn’t anything we didn’t know.
One of the conditions for the approval of an emergency pesticide petition is “loss of pesticide,” wither through insects developing resistance or regulatory agencies canceling the pesticide. This is also known as the EPA doing its job. Yet the agency is more than willing to undermine its previous decisions and credibility. When will we be left with the bill for these shortcuts…or has it already arrived.
Governments are brainstorming for ways to combat the devastating environmental effects of factory farming, and several countries in Europe are calling for a tax on meat. No other industry involves the most pressing environmental and health issues of today, like GMOs, increased greenhouse gases, the destruction of natural habitats, herbicides, pesticides, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, quite like factory farming. Even worse, the meat and the corn and soy that feed them are on the receiving end of a massive amount government subsidies. Our government pays nearly 38 billion dollars a year to hasten the death of our eco-system and ourselves.
Yet meat is still powerfully entrenched in cultures worldwide, and the likelihood of a completely vegan or even vegetarian world is not high. 84% of vegetarians and 70% of vegans return to eating meat at some point in their lives. Our current carnivorous habits are not sustainable. Is a meat tax the way to fix it?
The Danish Ethics Council started with a call for a tax on beef. That measure was passed by the council and is now scheduled for government consideration. While beef causes 10 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions, more than chicken and pork, the council has plans to extend the proposed tax to other red meats.
The United Kingdom
Several studies in the United Kingdom have resulted in a national conversation likely to result in meat taxes within the next 10 years. Analysis from Glasglow University and Chatham House, an international thinktank, indicate that public would see government intervention in this issue as a positive. According to Laura Wellesley from Chatham House, lead author of the research,
Governments are ignoring what should be a hugely appealing, win-win policy…The idea that interventions like this are too politically sensitive and too difficult to implement is unjustified. Our focus groups show people expect governments to lead action on issues that are for the global good. Our research indicates any backlash to unpopular policies would likely be short-lived as long as the rationale for action was strong.”
The survey analysis also found that many were surprised to learn of government subsidies for meat production, particularly in the large amounts given by the U.S. government.
Germany already has a tax of 7 percent on animal products. The German federal environment agency has expressed a desire to raise that number to 19 percent, in order to keep with the Paris climate accords. Consumers would be the ones to pay this fine, although the agency has suggested that the estimated 5.2 billion euro tax revenue would lower consumption taxes on other food items.
My Opinion: We Pay to Produce It, Now We Pay to Eat It…?
America is much more attached to its meat products than Europe. The average American eats 200 pounds of meat a year, and for that American to be eating healthy (as it pertains to cancer and heart disease) levels of meat, those 200 pounds need to be reduced by two-thirds. But would Americans be so gung-ho about meat if they knew they’re actually paying an extra 8 dollars in hidden costs (healthcare, subsidies, and environmental degradation) for each Big Mac?
Here’s an idea…rather than tax consumers and charge them twice, slowly pull subsidies away from corporations running businesses contributing to climate change. This likely won’t happen, as the U.S. government cares about businesses, not people. Maybe if businesses weren’t so short-sighted, they would realize that people with more money buy more products.
In our current iteration, a meat tax in the United States is more likely to leave poor people without the funds or the knowledge for proper nutrition. Replacing everything meat with a version of tofurky isn’t sustainable or healthy either. In our school systems, we need real health and real food education that includes gardening.
On the other hand, if the tax happens, and it does promote awareness and reduced meat consumption, we’re not going to be too angry.
GM crops will continue to be banned in Britain after Brexit, says Michael Gove
Michael Gove, Britain’s environment secretary, indicates that food made from genetically modified organisms will continue to be banned in the United Kingdom after Britain leaves the European Union. The US is expected to push for more GM-based foods to be sold in Europe.
The U.S. is putting Britian under intense political pressure drop the ban on GM foods after Brexit. In twenty years European Union scientists have deemed 40 GMO crops safe; but only a GM version of maize is grown, (grown in Spain for animal feed).
Mr Gove was asked by The Telegraph if GM food is more likely to be sold in the UK after Brexit, and if he would eat “chlorine-washed chicken,” which the US wants to export to the UK. He replied: “No and yes,” but then hastily, unsuccessfully, he attempted to cover for his admission, saying “but probably in whichever order you prefer”.
Earlier this month the US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross (Trump appointee) said that food regulations are among several “landmines” that may impede negotiations with the new trade deal. He said complying with EU food standards on GMOs and chlorine-washed chicken is problematic with trade negotiations. Mr Ross said that restrictions imposed by the EU were “really not science-based”.
We’re huge trading partners with each other and our economies are in many ways more similar to each other than either of us is to most of Europe.”
New Regulations for Homeopathic Supplements, FDA Announces
The Food and Drug Administration has announced a new risk-based approach to regulating homeopathic medicines with an increased focus on products administered by injection, intended for children or the elderly, and those marketed for serious diseases. Per the Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act of 1994, homeopathic medicines will not need FDA approval to be on the market, but this proposal brings an increased level of inspection to the 3 billion dollar homeopathy industry.
Among other reasons, these guidelines have been introduced shortly after the discovery of inconsistent amounts of belladonna (otherwise known as deadly nightshade) were found in teething tablets, causing 400 injuries and 10 deaths.
NBC News reported that when Little Blaine Talbott started teething, his mom, Karina, saw homeopathic teething tablets in the store, she grabbed them. “It said homeopathic, all natural, you know, organic stuff, and so you think that stuff is going to be safe for your child.” Coon Blaine began having seizures. Neurologistsdidn’t know what was causing them, but the seizures stopped when Karina ran out of the tablets.
Karina Talbott had been giving her baby Hyland’s homeopathic teething tablets, which the Food and Drug Administration has since asked people to stop using. The tablets often contained harmful levels of belladonna, a plant-based poison.” – NBC News
Even so, most homeopathic treatments on the market will not be affected by this more intense scrutiny. The FDA says it is primarily concerned with unsafe ingredients and poor manufacturing quality, according to a statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb.
Supplements the FDA Will Focus On
While the FDA has made it clear they will not be changing the way the majority of homeopathic are regulated, some medications have been put on notice. These include
Products that have or are associated with a history of manufacturing errors, adverse health incidences or other safety issues
Products with infectious agents, controlled substances, and potentially toxic ingredients
Products administered through non-oral or non-topical method, such as injection
Products meant to treat serious diseases such as cancer, heart disease, or addiction issues
Products aimed at children or elderly populations
Products that have been altered or where the strength, quality, or purity differs from established standards
Mild or Truly Terrifying?
It is possible to see this as the end of being able to treat yourself in the way you see fit. There is some truth in that, and as Americans being told what we can or can’t do is unsettling. “It’s a slippery slope…” But the good news is that this is on the mild side of medication regulation, and there is certainly an argument made for a greater level of regulation – with the right intentions. The FDA has released guidelines, as opposed to hard and fast rules. It’s entirely possible that many supplements will be left alone. If we learned one thing from Nestle’s recent acquisition of Pure Encapsulations, Garden of Life, and Douglas Labs, supplements are big business, and our government is extremely friendly to big business, which brings up the other possibility. We can see a future where large supplement manufacturers, of whom put the profits over our health, could ruin the health of the natural health industry.
Trump and the Fast Food Diet of the “Healthiest” President In History
Two Big Macs, two Filet-O-Fish sandwiches, and a chocolate milkshake is a typical order for a meal for the president, according to a new book. Corey R. Lewandowski was fired as Trump’s campaign manager and David Bossie, was the Deputy Campaign Manager for Trump but resigned after three months. They’ve written a book together, Let Trump Be Trump, whichhas shed light on some of Donald Trump’s behaviors including his eating habits. The news of Donald Trump’s diet has gone viral.
On Trump Force One there were four major food groups: McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, pizza and Diet Coke,” – Washington Post
Like us, many in the natural-health community were optimistic that Trump may at least expose some of the corruption within the pharmaceutical industry, regarding vaccines in particular, but those hopes were dashed a day after Kennedy spoke with Trump.
As most will likely remember, Donald Trump’s personal physician, Dr. Harold Bornstein, who has seen Trump since 1980, stated that,
If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.”
There have been numerous concerns regarding Donald’s health, including his weight, his mental health, and his recent slurring of words made headlines and fed speculation all over the world.
Is Donald Trump Healthy?
That’s the real question. Trump is not “healthy” by our standards, but that’s relative. Is he healthier than most people his age? Probably. Most people in their 70s are not healthy at all, and he does have lots of money and power, which can help to slow down the body’s deterioration, especially if one is blessed with good genetics, as Trump has claimed he is. A key difference between him and Hillary Clinton’s health is that Donald’s health, for better or worse, never became an issue in his campaign. Hillary collapsed while getting on her bus. If nothing else, it seems the Don knows better what his limitations are than Clinton does or did. This can create an allure of greater health than the truth. For instance, picture a 70-year-old man who decides to take the stairs instead of the elevator to burn off a few calories. It’s 12 flights. He is in pretty good shape compared to Trump but he has a heart attack. Trump is not likely to take the stairs (just an educated guess). Trump doesn’t do much of anything active besides golf (with a golf cart) and his speeches.
‘Other than golf, he considers exercise misguided, arguing that a person, like a battery, is born with a finite amount of energy,’ writes Evan Osnos in a piece entitled ‘How Trump Could Get Fired‘ that appears in the May 8, edition of the New Yorker.” – CNN
I am up there using a lot of motion. These rooms are hot like saunas. I guess that’s a form of exercise.” – Time
He doesn’t sleep much (he claims about three hours a night). He is obese. He loses his temper easily. He does not exercise. He doesn’t like vegetables or fruits or raw foods or home-cooking. He is a well-known germaphobe, who needs a continuous supply of unopened oreo cookies because he won’t eat from an opened package. His understanding of how the body and germs work leaves much to be desired. Is he any more or less likely to die of a heart attack than Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders if one of them were in the same position? That’s hard to say. There are too many variables. We’re sure Bernie is the healthiest of the three, but we as a nation would likely still be totally invested in who his running mate is for obvious reasons like we were with John McCain. But it is clear to anyone who understands how the body works that the man’s brain is not running like a well-maintained machine.
And what about that slurring? Was that just a parched mouth as the White House has insisted? Like Trevour Noah at the Daily Show, we’d put our money on dentures.
REUTERS June 2015
His teeth aren’t real. Click on this picture above, then right-click on it, and open the image in a new tab and click on his mouth to zoom in. Does this look like the teeth of a man at 71 years old who prefers McDonald’s? No. Are they dentures? Either that or veneers or implants of some sort. Here’s another picture.
So is the president healthy? Oral health is a good indicator of gut health, and when we take into account his age, we have to give him some credit. At 71 years old, he certainly could be a lot worse off, but “healthy”, he is not, though he’s obviously been able to afford top-notch conventional medical care all of his life.
Is the Presidency Taking Its Toll?
Of course, but we may not be able to see it. Newsweek recently did an article called, Here’s What Donald Trump May Look Like After His Stressful Presidency.
The image shows a side-by-side comparison with a digitally edited photo of President Donald Trump using the iPhone app AgingBooth. Of course, this image is problematic because the left picture is an airbrushed image of Trump with what appears to be a better makeup job than usual, which is not indicative of his true self at all, or what he looked like as he took the presidency. But we do know how much a presidency can age a person, as it is surely one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in the world.
Let’s take a look and see how the Don is doing now that his first year in office coming to an end. It’s hard to find the right images for the job, again, with all the makeup, but take a look:
What Donald Trump Looked Like near the end 2015
October 22, 2015 time.com/4082627/trump-mosques-minimum-wage/
What Donald Trump Looks Like After Nearly One Year In Office
Nov. 27th 2017
I looked at dozens of images, maybe hundreds, and I tried to pick the ones that most fairly represented him. I think there’s a small difference, but it’s hard to tell with the makeup, and it’s no more aging than what anyone would expect for a man ni his 70s. It’s possible his diet has actually improved since taking office, who knows? It will be interesting to see how the office effects his health if he continues his presidency a few more years, provided we still have the internet.
I surmise that as we discover how important gut health is to our brain, our hormonal system, and our disposition, society will be more and more disgusted with the fuel this man chooses to put in his body.
A Million Consumers Call to Block Monsanto Bayer Merger
Farming, environmental, and consumer groups have delivered a petition with over a million signatures to the Department of Justice asking them to block the merger between German pharmaceutical company Bayer and agricultural giant Monsanto. The petition was delivered days ahead of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing on technology in agriculture and data-driven farming. The petition is in addition to two recent reports showing the damaging impact of the merger on both farmers and consumers.
The first report from is Consumer Federation of America, “Mega-Mergers in the U.S. Seed and Agrochemical Sector the Political Economy of Tight Oligopolies on Steroids and the Squeeze on Farmers and Consumers,” and examines the Bayer Monsanto merger as an oliogopoly and discusses how having only select companies in charge will effect our food system. The second report is from Friends of the Earth, SumOfUs and the Open Markets Institute and entitled “Bayer-Monsanto Merger: Big Data, Big Agriculture, Big Problems.” It looks at the implications of the Bayer Monsanto merger on competition and farmer choice, especially in the area of data-driven farming.
Bayer and Monsanto’s toxic mega-merger is a danger to our planet and everyone living on it. Over 1 million Americans have called on the Department of Justice to protect our farmers and families from the consolidation of corporate power. Bayer and Monsanto’s merger is a direct threat to the future of people and our environment. The Justice Department must put on the breaks and stop this merger.” – Erich Pica, President Friends of the Earth
Consumers are concerned and worry that this could become a damaging monopoly.
If the Bayer-Monsanto merger is approved, the new company would be the world’s largest vegetable seed company, world’s largest cottonseed company, world’s largest manufacturer and seller of herbicides, the world’s largest owner of intellectual property/patents for herbicide tolerant traits. Should the merger move forward, 77 percent of the corn seed in America would be controlled by two companies, Bayer-Monsanto and Dow-DuPont. – OCM
