Are Draconian Limits on Vitamins Coming to the US?

Meetings being held between the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and other world bodies to discuss “harmonization” (meaning restriction) of “nutrient intake” recommendations indicate that the answer may be yes.  Action Alert!

NAS, which is a United States non-governmental organization that advises the federal government on a range of issues, recently met with groups from the World Health Organization and the United Nations, both of which are sponsors of Codex,  a long time threat to US supplements,  to discuss possible supplement restrictions under the guise of facilitating trade.

Severe restrictions on vitamin doses in supplements are already well under way in the European Union, and it doesn’t look good. At one point, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) discussed setting the maximum level for beta carotene in a supplement to the amount provided by half a carrot, and the maximum level of selenium to what is found in one-third of a brazil nut.

EFSA could arrive at such nonsensical conclusions only through bad science, as our scientific director Rob Ververk has demonstrated. The methods they used originated from concerns about environmental toxins, which of course have no beneficial role in health. Nutrients are quite distinct, and as such, require a completely different approach. For example, their analysis failed to break down a nutrient group; instead EFSA set a maximum level based on the most hazardous (and usually synthetic) member of a given nutrient group such as vitamin A (retinol /natural b-carotene), or iron (iron sulphate /ferrous bisglycinate). These methods obviously yield skewed results and did not take into account variations in the population (age, race, genetics, etc.) that affect the amount of nutrients one might need.

The dose limiting in Europe, while bad for Europeans seeking to optimize health through therapeutic levels of nutrients, normally wouldn’t be an immediate cause for concern for those of us in the United States. This is where Codex Alimentarius comes in. Codex was initially developed as an intergovernmental body to establish international food safety standards and regulate ingredients of food products with the stated goal of promoting “fair trade practices” and consumer protections in the global trade for food. A country does not have to adopt Codex standards, but approximately 300 Codex guidelines and standards are used by its member countries as the basis for their regional and national laws.

Codex standards regarding supplements are widely expected to follow EFSA and the EU’s lead, since the EU has considerable influence in Codex. A few years ago, there was great concern that the US, a member of Codex, would adopt these restrictive standards behind closed doors without public involvement. If the FDA follows the law, however, this shouldn’t be the case. Adopting international standards should be a public process, either through a comment-rulemaking procedure or through the creation of legislation in Congress. Either way, the public should have an opportunity to weigh in.

The larger question of whether the FDA can ban high-dose supplements without public involvement, though, is less black and white. Our concern is that the question is no longer whether the US might try to adopt Codex standards, but whether it will follow the EU’s lead and create standards, including upper limits, on its own.

Federal law defines an adulterated supplement as a supplement that “presents a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury” either when used according to the product’s label or under ordinary conditions of use. Recently, the FDA determined through a guidance document that certain bulk caffeine products were adulterated because they contained hundreds of potentially lethal doses. The FDA said that these products must either be diluted or sold in pre-measured packets. This is important in as much as the FDA made a determination through guidance, rather than rulemaking, about what an “adulterated” supplement is—and the FDA cannot be legally challenged for positions taken in a guidance. Might the FDA point to NAS recommended upper limits on vitamins to turn around and say that any supplements containing doses above those levels are “adulterated” because they “present a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury”? It’s unclear, but this concerning avenue seems open.

The involvement of the NAS appears to mark the initial phase of bringing the discussion of establishing upper limits for vitamins to the US. Codex is in large part a project of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations—two of the other groups present at the NAS’s workshop, in addition to representatives from EFSA. These are not good signs and suggest the US, too, may follow the flawed European approach to setting limits on vitamins.

It also should be mentioned that, irrespective of influence from Europe and other world bodies, the National Academies of Science, formerly known as the Institute of Medicine, has proven definitively that, when it comes to supplements, it has no idea what it’s talking about. For example, the organization’s recommended daily allowance for vitamin D is a paltry 600 IU for adults; it’s upper level—that is, the level above which the organization said poses a danger to the individual—is 4,000 IU for adults. The Vitamin D Council, on the other hand, recommends 5,000 IU of vitamin D for adults, and other estimates are even higher. Put simply, we do not want the NAS anywhere near a discussion that could lead to limits on the levels of nutrients a supplement can contain.

We cannot wait for these discussions to take a more concrete form to take action. We need to stop the NAS in their tracks now.

Action Alert! Write to Congress, the FDA, and NAS and ask them not to allow the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to engineer severe upper limits on supplement doses along the lines set by the EU and world body Codex. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2s82OiE via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2Lq8ZaF

What do Opioids, Politicians, and Your Doctor Have in Common?

Bribery. Action Alert!

Separate reports have surfaced that demonstrate both doctors and politicians are on opioid-makers’ pay roll. In return it appears as though doctors have prescribed more opioids and lawmakers have backed legislation to make it harder to combat the opioid crisis. This is cronyism 101.

First, the doctors. Researchers have reported evidence that the doctors who receive the most attention from drug companies—such as paid speaking jobs, free lunches, and branded merchandise—prescribe the largest amount of opioid drugs. The researchers report that every free meal given to a doctor from a pharmaceutical company resulted in a spike of opioid prescriptions.

Next, Congressional candidates gearing up for midterm elections are pointing out examples of current lawmakers accepting pharmaceutical money and then supporting legislation that makes it more difficult for the federal government to regulate the opioid industry—specifically, the legislation made it more difficult for the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to suspend suspicious orders of opioids. Big Pharma dumped millions into the campaigns of lawmakers at the time, and spent much more on lobbying efforts in support of the bill. It seems that it was money well spent. Sitting lawmakers of course deny that there was any quid pro quo, but the connection to us seems obvious.

These are the forces that are preventing cheap, safe, and effective natural medicine from seeing the light of day in our medical system. Big Pharma influences doctors to prescribe their expensive and dangerous medicines; they also grease the wheels in Washington to ensure that there aren’t any legislative threats to their bottom line; the FDA, which is meant to regulate the drug industry, receives its funding from them.

There are, of course, natural alternatives to pain management, such as fish oil, sulfur-containing MSM, and cannabidiol (CBD) oil, but the government is making moves to remove these alternatives from the market. An FDA advisory committee voted to ban MSM medications from being made at compounding pharmacies, and the federal government is moving in on CBD oil. It’s the same old, same old in our crony capitalist health system.

Action Alert! Send a message to the FDA and Congress, telling them to retain consumer access to affordable MSM and CBD oil supplements. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2klEGFH via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2KT4OTH

Finally! Some Relief for Dying Patients

Thanks to ANH member activism over many years, Congress has finally approved Right to Try legislation. Tell President Trump to sign it into law! Action Alert!

Yesterday, the House of Representatives approved legislation that expands access to experimental drugs for terminally ill patients who have exhausted all other treatment options. It also frees drug companies from liability where trial medications are provided. Patients and their families who desire access to experimental drugs are faced with incredibly difficult life- and- death decisions. Such decisions should be between a patient and his or her doctor, not with the FDA standing in the way.   As the law stands now, patients need to go through an FDA bureaucracy to get access to experimental drugs. This is an unnecessary government intrusion into a patient’s life.

This is a long-overdue win. ANH has supported this legislation for years, and in fact worked with former Representative Ron Paul of Texas on a very early, more expansive version of the bill that included the right to choose alternative natural treatments as well. We will continue to work to make a patient’s “right to try” broader, to include non-drug treatments.

Next the bill will be sent to President Trump’s desk for his approval.

The fight, of course, is not over. While this bill is an important stepping stone, patients are still blocked from choosing many alternative treatments, either through medical monopolies or government regulation. The core of ANH’s mission is to allow patients the freedom to choose the treatments that work best for them. There is much more work to be done, but it is heartening to see that common-sense legislation can be enacted.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and urge your representatives to expand the Right to Try law to non-drug treatments where they are restricted by law. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2x4z4ZI via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2J10XGP

Update: Victory in the War on Natural Medicine!

ANH members played a key role in thwarting efforts to eliminate access to personalized medicine.

Two years ago, the FDA released a draft guidance saying that a compounding pharmacy (a pharmacy that makes customized medicines for individual patients) cannot register as both an “outsourcing” (503B) and a traditional (503A) facility. We issued an action alert to ANH members to speak out against this policy and submitted detailed legal comments drafted by our general counsel. The agency just released the final guidance, and the FDA listened to our criticisms. The bottom line is that this change will make it much easier for many compounding pharmacies to stay in business, meaning patients will be better able to get the medicines, such as nutrient IV infusions and bioidentical hormones like progesterone and estriol, that they need.

This is an important victory. The Drug Quality and Security Act of 2013 (DQSA) separated compounding pharmacies into two categories:

• “traditional” compounding pharmacies (regulated under section 503A of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act), and
• “outsourcing” compounding pharmacies (regulated under section 503B of the same law).

Among the main differences between these two pharmacies are that outsourcing pharmacies can engage in office use compounding (making medicines for doctors to keep on-hand in their offices), and can ship medicines interstate without restriction, but they can only compound substances from a limited, preapproved list from the FDA. It is already clear that the FDA intends this medications list to be very short. Because outsourcing facilities can compound for office use and ship interstate, they are well-placed to capture a large portion of the market—even if they can only compound from a shorter list of medications.

Traditional pharmacies can no longer engage in office use, and can only ship between 5% and 30% of total orders out-of-state, but they are able to make many medications that outsourcing facilities cannot. Specifically, they can compound medications that have a USP monograph, are components of approved drugs, or are on a preapproved list. For example, the bioidentical hormone estriol is, as of yet, not included on a preapproved list for outsourcing facilities to compound, and we believe it unlikely to be added; however, because it has a USP monograph, traditional pharmacies can make it. (Note that special interests are attempting to ban estriol through another process, and we are fighting them every step of the way.)

Remember that the FDA is funded by drug companies, not pharmacies, and drug companies see compounded medicine as competition and a threat to their bottom line. It seems to us no surprise then that the FDA policies of limiting office use and interstate sales would first pressure traditional pharmacies to register as outsourcing facilities, where the FDA can decide what medications can be made. Second, FDA’s latest proposal would have eliminated their ability to still provide medications they can make as a 503A traditional pharmacy. They would have been forced to choose: switch to an outsourcing facility where the FDA is more in control, or remain a traditional pharmacy and potentially go out of business.

We’re glad that the FDA has changed course and will allow pharmacies the flexibility to compound as both outsourcing and traditional facilities. Unless the FDA has something else up its sleeve, this change in course will help many pharmacies keep their doors open. We must continue to hold the agency’s feet to the fire to prevent even more damage to the compounding industry!

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2IYgck3 via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2GNzSBI

Action Alert: Protect High Dose Supplements

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2x4yVFE via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2LtsL5g

Are Draconian Limits on Vitamins Coming to the US?

Meetings being held between the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and other world bodies to discuss “harmonization” (meaning restriction) of “nutrient intake” recommendations indicate that the answer may be yes.  Action Alert!

NAS, which is a United States non-governmental organization that advises the federal government on a range of issues, recently met with groups from the World Health Organization and the United Nations, both of which are sponsors of Codex,  a long time threat to US supplements,  to discuss possible supplement restrictions under the guise of facilitating trade.

Severe restrictions on vitamin doses in supplements are already well under way in the European Union, and it doesn’t look good. At one point, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) discussed setting the maximum level for beta carotene in a supplement to the amount provided by half a carrot, and the maximum level of selenium to what is found in one-third of a brazil nut.

EFSA could arrive at such nonsensical conclusions only through bad science, as our scientific director Rob Ververk has demonstrated. The methods they used originated from concerns about environmental toxins, which of course have no beneficial role in health. Nutrients are quite distinct, and as such, require a completely different approach. For example, their analysis failed to break down a nutrient group; instead EFSA set a maximum level based on the most hazardous (and usually synthetic) member of a given nutrient group such as vitamin A (retinol /natural b-carotene), or iron (iron sulphate /ferrous bisglycinate). These methods obviously yield skewed results and did not take into account variations in the population (age, race, genetics, etc.) that affect the amount of nutrients one might need.

The dose limiting in Europe, while bad for Europeans seeking to optimize health through therapeutic levels of nutrients, normally wouldn’t be an immediate cause for concern for those of us in the United States. This is where Codex Alimentarius comes in. Codex was initially developed as an intergovernmental body to establish international food safety standards and regulate ingredients of food products with the stated goal of promoting “fair trade practices” and consumer protections in the global trade for food. A country does not have to adopt Codex standards, but approximately 300 Codex guidelines and standards are used by its member countries as the basis for their regional and national laws.

Codex standards regarding supplements are widely expected to follow EFSA and the EU’s lead, since the EU has considerable influence in Codex. A few years ago, there was great concern that the US, a member of Codex, would adopt these restrictive standards behind closed doors without public involvement. If the FDA follows the law, however, this shouldn’t be the case. Adopting international standards should be a public process, either through a comment-rulemaking procedure or through the creation of legislation in Congress. Either way, the public should have an opportunity to weigh in.

The larger question of whether the FDA can ban high-dose supplements without public involvement, though, is less black and white. Our concern is that the question is no longer whether the US might try to adopt Codex standards, but whether it will follow the EU’s lead and create standards, including upper limits, on its own.

Federal law defines an adulterated supplement as a supplement that “presents a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury” either when used according to the product’s label or under ordinary conditions of use. Recently, the FDA determined through a guidance document that certain bulk caffeine products were adulterated because they contained hundreds of potentially lethal doses. The FDA said that these products must either be diluted or sold in pre-measured packets. This is important in as much as the FDA made a determination through guidance, rather than rulemaking, about what an “adulterated” supplement is—and the FDA cannot be legally challenged for positions taken in a guidance. Might the FDA point to NAS recommended upper limits on vitamins to turn around and say that any supplements containing doses above those levels are “adulterated” because they “present a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury”? It’s unclear, but this concerning avenue seems open.

The involvement of the NAS appears to mark the initial phase of bringing the discussion of establishing upper limits for vitamins to the US. Codex is in large part a project of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations—two of the other groups present at the NAS’s workshop, in addition to representatives from EFSA. These are not good signs and suggest the US, too, may follow the flawed European approach to setting limits on vitamins.

It also should be mentioned that, irrespective of influence from Europe and other world bodies, the National Academies of Science, formerly known as the Institute of Medicine, has proven definitively that, when it comes to supplements, it has no idea what it’s talking about. For example, the organization’s recommended daily allowance for vitamin D is a paltry 600 IU for adults; it’s upper level—that is, the level above which the organization said poses a danger to the individual—is 4,000 IU for adults. The Vitamin D Council, on the other hand, recommends 5,000 IU of vitamin D for adults, and other estimates are even higher. Put simply, we do not want the NAS anywhere near a discussion that could lead to limits on the levels of nutrients a supplement can contain.

We cannot wait for these discussions to take a more concrete form to take action. We need to stop the NAS in their tracks now.

Action Alert! Write to Congress, the FDA, and NAS and ask them not to allow the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to engineer severe upper limits on supplement doses along the lines set by the EU and world body Codex. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2s82OiE via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2KT1Nmb

What do Opioids, Politicians, and Your Doctor Have in Common?

Bribery. Action Alert!

Separate reports have surfaced that demonstrate both doctors and politicians are on opioid-makers’ pay roll. In return it appears as though doctors have prescribed more opioids and lawmakers have backed legislation to make it harder to combat the opioid crisis. This is cronyism 101.

First, the doctors. Researchers have reported evidence that the doctors who receive the most attention from drug companies—such as paid speaking jobs, free lunches, and branded merchandise—prescribe the largest amount of opioid drugs. The researchers report that every free meal given to a doctor from a pharmaceutical company resulted in a spike of opioid prescriptions.

Next, Congressional candidates gearing up for midterm elections are pointing out examples of current lawmakers accepting pharmaceutical money and then supporting legislation that makes it more difficult for the federal government to regulate the opioid industry—specifically, the legislation made it more difficult for the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to suspend suspicious orders of opioids. Big Pharma dumped millions into the campaigns of lawmakers at the time, and spent much more on lobbying efforts in support of the bill. It seems that it was money well spent. Sitting lawmakers of course deny that there was any quid pro quo, but the connection to us seems obvious.

These are the forces that are preventing cheap, safe, and effective natural medicine from seeing the light of day in our medical system. Big Pharma influences doctors to prescribe their expensive and dangerous medicines; they also grease the wheels in Washington to ensure that there aren’t any legislative threats to their bottom line; the FDA, which is meant to regulate the drug industry, receives its funding from them.

There are, of course, natural alternatives to pain management, such as fish oil, sulfur-containing MSM, and cannabidiol (CBD) oil, but the government is making moves to remove these alternatives from the market. An FDA advisory committee voted to ban MSM medications from being made at compounding pharmacies, and the federal government is moving in on CBD oil. It’s the same old, same old in our crony capitalist health system.

Action Alert! Send a message to the FDA and Congress, telling them to retain consumer access to affordable MSM and CBD oil supplements. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2klEGFH via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2LqYiVl

Finally! Some Relief for Dying Patients

Thanks to ANH member activism over many years, Congress has finally approved Right to Try legislation. Tell President Trump to sign it into law! Action Alert!

Yesterday, the House of Representatives approved legislation that expands access to experimental drugs for terminally ill patients who have exhausted all other treatment options. It also frees drug companies from liability where trial medications are provided. Patients and their families who desire access to experimental drugs are faced with incredibly difficult life- and- death decisions. Such decisions should be between a patient and his or her doctor, not with the FDA standing in the way.   As the law stands now, patients need to go through an FDA bureaucracy to get access to experimental drugs. This is an unnecessary government intrusion into a patient’s life.

This is a long-overdue win. ANH has supported this legislation for years, and in fact worked with former Representative Ron Paul of Texas on a very early, more expansive version of the bill that included the right to choose alternative natural treatments as well. We will continue to work to make a patient’s “right to try” broader, to include non-drug treatments.

Next the bill will be sent to President Trump’s desk for his approval.

The fight, of course, is not over. While this bill is an important stepping stone, patients are still blocked from choosing many alternative treatments, either through medical monopolies or government regulation. The core of ANH’s mission is to allow patients the freedom to choose the treatments that work best for them. There is much more work to be done, but it is heartening to see that common-sense legislation can be enacted.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and urge your representatives to expand the Right to Try law to non-drug treatments where they are restricted by law. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2x4z4ZI via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2KRb4v4

Update: Victory in the War on Natural Medicine!

ANH members played a key role in thwarting efforts to eliminate access to personalized medicine.

Two years ago, the FDA released a draft guidance saying that a compounding pharmacy (a pharmacy that makes customized medicines for individual patients) cannot register as both an “outsourcing” (503B) and a traditional (503A) facility. We issued an action alert to ANH members to speak out against this policy and submitted detailed legal comments drafted by our general counsel. The agency just released the final guidance, and the FDA listened to our criticisms. The bottom line is that this change will make it much easier for many compounding pharmacies to stay in business, meaning patients will be better able to get the medicines, such as nutrient IV infusions and bioidentical hormones like progesterone and estriol, that they need.

This is an important victory. The Drug Quality and Security Act of 2013 (DQSA) separated compounding pharmacies into two categories:

• “traditional” compounding pharmacies (regulated under section 503A of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act), and
• “outsourcing” compounding pharmacies (regulated under section 503B of the same law).

Among the main differences between these two pharmacies are that outsourcing pharmacies can engage in office use compounding (making medicines for doctors to keep on-hand in their offices), and can ship medicines interstate without restriction, but they can only compound substances from a limited, preapproved list from the FDA. It is already clear that the FDA intends this medications list to be very short. Because outsourcing facilities can compound for office use and ship interstate, they are well-placed to capture a large portion of the market—even if they can only compound from a shorter list of medications.

Traditional pharmacies can no longer engage in office use, and can only ship between 5% and 30% of total orders out-of-state, but they are able to make many medications that outsourcing facilities cannot. Specifically, they can compound medications that have a USP monograph, are components of approved drugs, or are on a preapproved list. For example, the bioidentical hormone estriol is, as of yet, not included on a preapproved list for outsourcing facilities to compound, and we believe it unlikely to be added; however, because it has a USP monograph, traditional pharmacies can make it. (Note that special interests are attempting to ban estriol through another process, and we are fighting them every step of the way.)

Remember that the FDA is funded by drug companies, not pharmacies, and drug companies see compounded medicine as competition and a threat to their bottom line. It seems to us no surprise then that the FDA policies of limiting office use and interstate sales would first pressure traditional pharmacies to register as outsourcing facilities, where the FDA can decide what medications can be made. Second, FDA’s latest proposal would have eliminated their ability to still provide medications they can make as a 503A traditional pharmacy. They would have been forced to choose: switch to an outsourcing facility where the FDA is more in control, or remain a traditional pharmacy and potentially go out of business.

We’re glad that the FDA has changed course and will allow pharmacies the flexibility to compound as both outsourcing and traditional facilities. Unless the FDA has something else up its sleeve, this change in course will help many pharmacies keep their doors open. We must continue to hold the agency’s feet to the fire to prevent even more damage to the compounding industry!

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2IYgck3 via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2J3bCkp

Action Alert: Protect High Dose Supplements

http://default.salsalabs.org/api/widget/template/f6a42be1-7dfe-484d-ab72-02588958f3ba/?tId=883537bc-298a-45d6-a065-3b1a4fe7333b

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2x4yVFE via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2GMY5bw

Will the Government Limit How Much Vitamin D You Can Take?

Take Action!

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2s5Ba60 via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2KOOiE6

Will the Government Limit How Much Vitamin D You Can Take?

Take Action!

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2s5Ba60 via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2J4kciW

A Step Towards Health Freedom in Australia

Consumers Down Under will have access to more information about alternative medicines.

A bill was recently approved in Australia that loosens some of the regulations governing advertising claims made by producers of alternative and complementary products. The Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 2017 creates a list of “permitted indications” which can be used in advertising without having to jump through the bureaucratic hoops previously required. Crucially, the list includes indications supported by “traditional evidence.” Australian lawmakers also rejected amendments to the bill that would have slapped natural products with a disclaimer—similar to what the FTC now requires for homeopathic products in the US—that would have read: “This traditional indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and there is no scientific evidence that this product is effective.”

We’re glad Australians have fought back efforts to restrict the information available to consumers about natural medicine. Take action to protect free speech in the US by supporting two Citizen’s Petitions for health claims about cranberries helping with urinary tract infections and vitamin D’s role in preventing preterm births.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2rV45cP via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2KDVMdl

A Step Towards Health Freedom in Australia

Consumers Down Under will have access to more information about alternative medicines.

A bill was recently approved in Australia that loosens some of the regulations governing advertising claims made by producers of alternative and complementary products. The Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 2017 creates a list of “permitted indications” which can be used in advertising without having to jump through the bureaucratic hoops previously required. Crucially, the list includes indications supported by “traditional evidence.” Australian lawmakers also rejected amendments to the bill that would have slapped natural products with a disclaimer—similar to what the FTC now requires for homeopathic products in the US—that would have read: “This traditional indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and there is no scientific evidence that this product is effective.”

We’re glad Australians have fought back efforts to restrict the information available to consumers about natural medicine. Take action to protect free speech in the US by supporting two Citizen’s Petitions for health claims about cranberries helping with urinary tract infections and vitamin D’s role in preventing preterm births.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2rV45cP via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2KDCCUJ

More Opioid Crisis Cronyism

One person’s health care crisis is Big Pharma’s golden opportunity.

From Stat News:

The White House’s national strategy to combat the opioid crisis, unveiled last week, would expand a particular kind of addiction treatment in federal criminal justice settings: a single drug, manufactured by a single company, with mixed views on the evidence regarding its use.

Federal prisons should “facilitate naltrexone treatment and access to treatment” to inmates as they transition out of incarceration, according to a fact sheet circulated by the administration. A White House spokesman later confirmed to STAT that the document referred specifically to naltrexone in its injectable form.

Comment: This is the very definition of crony capitalism—when the government gets to pick winners and losers. Don’t forget that the “losers” in this case are cheap, safe, and effective natural remedies, where the government blocks access to information (like the benefits of vitamin D for the flu) or bans access altogether (like CBD oil for pain).

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2rRnQC7 via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2KyfhUB

More Opioid Crisis Cronyism

One person’s health care crisis is Big Pharma’s golden opportunity.

From Stat News:

The White House’s national strategy to combat the opioid crisis, unveiled last week, would expand a particular kind of addiction treatment in federal criminal justice settings: a single drug, manufactured by a single company, with mixed views on the evidence regarding its use.

Federal prisons should “facilitate naltrexone treatment and access to treatment” to inmates as they transition out of incarceration, according to a fact sheet circulated by the administration. A White House spokesman later confirmed to STAT that the document referred specifically to naltrexone in its injectable form.

Comment: This is the very definition of crony capitalism—when the government gets to pick winners and losers. Don’t forget that the “losers” in this case are cheap, safe, and effective natural remedies, where the government blocks access to information (like the benefits of vitamin D for the flu) or bans access altogether (like CBD oil for pain).

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2rRnQC7 via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2wSx6LY

Pesticides for Dinner?

Lawmakers in the House of Representatives think they’re safe enough to eat and drink. Don’t let them sell us out to Big Ag. Action Alert! 

Every four years, Congress passes a new Farm Bill, a huge piece of legislation that establishes policies for US agriculture, nutrition assistance programs, organic development programs, and more. While there are some decent, minor provisions in the current Farm Bill making its way through the House of Representatives, on balance it contains many more items that will hurt consumers, especially when it comes to the regulation of pesticides.

One of the biggest problems with the bill is that it will likely allow more pesticides to be sprayed on organic crops. Currently, there is a National List of approved and prohibited substances for organic production—some synthetic substances are allowed in organic farming, and some natural substances (like arsenic and strychnine) are prohibited. Items are added to the list through the National Organic Standards Board, which uses specific criteria (such as the effects on human health, effects on the ecosystem, availability of alternatives, etc.) to evaluate whether a substance can be used in organic agriculture.

The Farm Bill creates an expedited process for items to be added to the National List. If the FDA or the EPA determine there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from exposure to the pesticide, a separate task force can be convened to determine if the substance can be added to the National List. Considering that the EPA has, for instance, outrageously concluded that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is safe, this provision opens up an avenue for all kinds of toxic pesticides to be added to the National List and sprayed on our organic food.  For more information about the well-documented negative health effects of glyphosate and other pesticides, including the possible link between these chemicals and birth defects, check out our previous coverage here and here.

Not only does the Farm Bill threaten organic integrity through increased use of pesticides; it preempts Americans at the city, county, and community level from restricting the use of pesticides. This is great for agribusinesses and chemical manufacturers, but not for local communities trying to protect their health. This provision is an obvious attempt to block an expanding number of cities that are passing laws restricting or banning the use of pesticides. Boulder, Colorado, for instance, banned Roundup for use on city parks, as did Irvine, California. To us it seems obvious that special interests asked for this: who other than Monsanto and Big Ag would care if Roundup could be sprayed on city parks? That Monsanto alone has spent more than $1 million in lobbying in 2018 does not seem like a coincidence.

Other provisions would allow farmers to spray pesticides into water, including drinking water sources. Keep in mind our water is already being contaminated by pesticides.  This has been linked to low birth weights, more breast cancer, and lower sperm counts. If the House removes protections that prevent more pesticides from being dumped in our water, we can expect these problems to get worse. Once again, this only seems to benefit special interests.

The current draft of the Farm Bill also eliminates all funding for the organic cost share program, which provides assistance to farmers trying to certify their farms as organic. This strikes us as a terrible allocation of resources. Billions are set aside to subsidize corn, wheat, soy, and other commodity crops that are used to make junk food; by contrast, the 2014 Farm Bill allocated $11.5 million per year for the organic cost share program—money that the House Farm Bill is now proposing to cut. Generally speaking, we don’t like the government picking winners and losers—this should be sorted out by the market. Not only is the government incompetent (recall the confused thinking that permeates the federal government’s dietary guidelines), it is also beholden to special interests. Incompetence and cronyism notwithstanding, if subsidies are going to be given out, it doesn’t make sense to send billions towards food that is making us unhealthy and sick, while eliminating funds for the production of sustainable, clean and healthy food.

The Farm Bill does include some of the provisions that were part of a previous bill that ANH supported which sought to address the issue of fake organics coming into the US from overseas. As we stated at the time, these measures wouldn’t fix all the problems with the organics program, but they are a step in the right direction in getting the government to do its job in ensuring the integrity of our domestic organics program.

Unfortunately, those measures are not enough for us to offer support to this bill. The threats to organic integrity and consumer health are too substantial—consumers must weight in and tell their representatives to stop protecting Big Ag at the expense of consumers.

The House is expected to vote on its version of the Farm Bill in the next few days; the Senate must still form its own bill, and then the two chambers will reconcile the two versions into a single bill. We will stay abreast of developments and alert ANH members at key points in the process.

Action Alert! Write to your representative in the House and tell him or her to protect consumers, not Big Ag, in this year’s Farm Bill. Please send your message immediately. 

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2KtUwJo via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2L7lNme

Pesticides for Dinner?

Lawmakers in the House of Representatives think they’re safe enough to eat and drink. Don’t let them sell us out to Big Ag. Action Alert! 

Every four years, Congress passes a new Farm Bill, a huge piece of legislation that establishes policies for US agriculture, nutrition assistance programs, organic development programs, and more. While there are some decent, minor provisions in the current Farm Bill making its way through the House of Representatives, on balance it contains many more items that will hurt consumers, especially when it comes to the regulation of pesticides.

One of the biggest problems with the bill is that it will likely allow more pesticides to be sprayed on organic crops. Currently, there is a National List of approved and prohibited substances for organic production—some synthetic substances are allowed in organic farming, and some natural substances (like arsenic and strychnine) are prohibited. Items are added to the list through the National Organic Standards Board, which uses specific criteria (such as the effects on human health, effects on the ecosystem, availability of alternatives, etc.) to evaluate whether a substance can be used in organic agriculture.

The Farm Bill creates an expedited process for items to be added to the National List. If the FDA or the EPA determine there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from exposure to the pesticide, a separate task force can be convened to determine if the substance can be added to the National List. Considering that the EPA has, for instance, outrageously concluded that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is safe, this provision opens up an avenue for all kinds of toxic pesticides to be added to the National List and sprayed on our organic food.  For more information about the well-documented negative health effects of glyphosate and other pesticides, including the possible link between these chemicals and birth defects, check out our previous coverage here and here.

Not only does the Farm Bill threaten organic integrity through increased use of pesticides; it preempts Americans at the city, county, and community level from restricting the use of pesticides. This is great for agribusinesses and chemical manufacturers, but not for local communities trying to protect their health. This provision is an obvious attempt to block an expanding number of cities that are passing laws restricting or banning the use of pesticides. Boulder, Colorado, for instance, banned Roundup for use on city parks, as did Irvine, California. To us it seems obvious that special interests asked for this: who other than Monsanto and Big Ag would care if Roundup could be sprayed on city parks? That Monsanto alone has spent more than $1 million in lobbying in 2018 does not seem like a coincidence.

Other provisions would allow farmers to spray pesticides into water, including drinking water sources. Keep in mind our water is already being contaminated by pesticides.  This has been linked to low birth weights, more breast cancer, and lower sperm counts. If the House removes protections that prevent more pesticides from being dumped in our water, we can expect these problems to get worse. Once again, this only seems to benefit special interests.

The current draft of the Farm Bill also eliminates all funding for the organic cost share program, which provides assistance to farmers trying to certify their farms as organic. This strikes us as a terrible allocation of resources. Billions are set aside to subsidize corn, wheat, soy, and other commodity crops that are used to make junk food; by contrast, the 2014 Farm Bill allocated $11.5 million per year for the organic cost share program—money that the House Farm Bill is now proposing to cut. Generally speaking, we don’t like the government picking winners and losers—this should be sorted out by the market. Not only is the government incompetent (recall the confused thinking that permeates the federal government’s dietary guidelines), it is also beholden to special interests. Incompetence and cronyism notwithstanding, if subsidies are going to be given out, it doesn’t make sense to send billions towards food that is making us unhealthy and sick, while eliminating funds for the production of sustainable, clean and healthy food.

The Farm Bill does include some of the provisions that were part of a previous bill that ANH supported which sought to address the issue of fake organics coming into the US from overseas. As we stated at the time, these measures wouldn’t fix all the problems with the organics program, but they are a step in the right direction in getting the government to do its job in ensuring the integrity of our domestic organics program.

Unfortunately, those measures are not enough for us to offer support to this bill. The threats to organic integrity and consumer health are too substantial—consumers must weight in and tell their representatives to stop protecting Big Ag at the expense of consumers.

The House is expected to vote on its version of the Farm Bill in the next few days; the Senate must still form its own bill, and then the two chambers will reconcile the two versions into a single bill. We will stay abreast of developments and alert ANH members at key points in the process.

Action Alert! Write to your representative in the House and tell him or her to protect consumers, not Big Ag, in this year’s Farm Bill. Please send your message immediately. 

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2KtUwJo via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2wRyX3s

Which Bottled Waters Contain the Most Plastic?

…in the water, not in the bottle! Action Alert!

Many Americans drink bottled water, the market for which has grown to $147 billion in recent years. Despite this rapid growth, there are emerging health concerns with drinking bottled water, notably from the chemicals used in the production of plastic which, as our friends at Mercola.com point out, have hormone-mimicking activity that threaten human health. A recent report tested top bottled water brands to see which were the most contaminated with plastic—and the results may shock you.

Researchers at the State University of New York, commissioned by the non-profit Orb Media, tested 259 bottles of eleven top brands of bottled water for the presence of microscopic plastic. Only seventeen of the 259 bottles were free of microplastic particles, and none of the brands were consistently free of plastic in the water. The most contaminated brands were Nestle Pure Life, Bisleri, Gerolsteiner, Aqua, and Epura; the least contaminated brands were San Pellegrino, Evian, Dasani, Wahaha, and Minalba.

Orb Media points out that if someone were to drink a liter of bottled water each day they might be consuming tens of thousands of microplastic particles in a year. These particles can lodge in the intestinal wall and can be small enough to cross the gut into the body. Microplastics aren’t just found in bottled water: a German study found them in all beers that were tested, and a French study even found them in the air.

The scariest part of this issue is that no one knows the impact of microplastics on human health; there have been zero studies on the effects of microplastic consumption by humans. Microplastic particles generally bind with toxins that don’t dissolve, so these particles could be carrying environmental pollutants like mercury or pesticides into our bodies.  There is also evidence that phthalates, chemicals found in plastics, affect hormones and metabolism, leading to weight gain: drinking bottled water could be making us fat!

This is a follow-up story to another report issued by Orb Media which found that 94% of tap water in the US was contaminated with plastic fibers.

Consumers should take heed of this report. It’s best to drink filtered spring water from glass, rather than plastic, bottles. Beware, too, of aluminum or other metal water bottles, which have been found to leak BPA at astonishing levels.

Action Alert! Tell the EPA and Congress to study the effects of microplastic particles on human health, and to protect consumers accordingly. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2rLrqys via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2IqGQOS

HPV Vaccine Linked to Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome?

Complaint alleges that Merck “deceitfully withheld, failed to provide, and concealed from consumers” important information regarding the safety and effectiveness of the HPV vaccine. Action Alert!

The HPV vaccine is among the most dangerous vaccines on the market—according to the World Health Organization’s drug monitoring database, the vaccine is associated with 82,000 total adverse events. Despite the danger of this vaccine, some states have mandated its use for school children (Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, DC) and many others are considering similar mandates. The family of a girl who believes she was injured by the vaccine is fighting back and suing Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, for fraud, deceit, and negligence.

Between 2010 and 2011, the sixteen-year-old received three injections of Gardasil. After the third shot she experienced a severe adverse reaction. It wasn’t until 2015 that she was diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), which is characterized by increased heart rate, drop in blood pressure, and dizziness upon standing up. In 2016 the young girl was further diagnosed with small fiber neuropathy—damage to small nerve fibers which can cause a wide variety of sensory symptoms including insensitivity to pain. This is not an isolated case. Our friends at ANH-International highlighted a World Health Organization study which suggested that the HPV vaccination produced clusters of serious adverse events, including POTS.

The girl’s family firmly believes these health problems were a result of HPV vaccination with Gardasil and have sued Merck.

The complaint also alleges that Merck failed to disclose other important information to consumers when marketing Gardasil, including that the vaccine was only effective against certain strains of HPV, that the vaccine is not effective once an individual is infected with the virus, that there are other existing methods that are effective in avoiding HPV viral infections, and more.

The family’s legal counsel succeeded in getting a Science Day Hearing, in which both the plaintiff and defendant present the scientific arguments supporting their case.

We hope the court weighs the facts and the science without the usual bias towards vaccine manufacturers, but this case will certainly be an uphill battle for the family. Recall that Congress shielded vaccine-makers from legal liability for the damage caused by their products in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Instead, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created, a $2.5 billion fund derived from a 75-cent-per-dose tax on vaccines. Parents seeking damages must go through the Vaccine Court, which itself is an uphill battle. Decisions in these cases are not made by a jury of peers, but by Special Masters, who are appointed by judges in the US Court of Federal Claims for four years. It can also be an incredibly lengthy process: a review of the data found that the vaccine court system failed to adjudicate petitions in a timely manner—Congress established that each case should take a maximum of 240 days, when in reality the average adjudication time is five years. But the problem is that vaccine-injured families, who are saddled with medical bills, need help in the short term, not in five years.

Warnings about the danger of the HPV vaccine are not just coming from distraught parents and injured children. A former Merck scientist predicted that Gardasil

will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers.

The adverse event reporting data seems to be proving him correct.

For more information about the HPV vaccine, how it was marketed, and the damage it is causing around the world, check out our new documentary, Manufactured Crisis: HPV, Hype, and Horror.

As more information that demonstrates the dangers of vaccines comes to light, it is increasingly important to protect vaccine exemptions at the state level, as well as to fight vaccine mandates. Parents and patients should be given the right to choose, and this right is increasingly under attack in states across the country.

Action Alert! Check to see if your state is listed below and click the link to protect vaccine choice in your state! Please send your message immediately. 

CA

IL

MN

MO

NJ

NY

OH

OK

PA

RI

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2wGQviO via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2jYQ9e6

Action Alert: Tell EPA to Investigate Microplastics in Bottled Water

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2L7gKCi via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2k0l8qn

Action Alert: Oppose the Farm Bill

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2IqCbfR via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2IQt9vU

Which Bottled Waters Contain the Most Plastic?

…in the water, not in the bottle! Action Alert!

Many Americans drink bottled water, the market for which has grown to $147 billion in recent years. Despite this rapid growth, there are emerging health concerns with drinking bottled water, notably from the chemicals used in the production of plastic which, as our friends at Mercola.com point out, have hormone-mimicking activity that threaten human health. A recent report tested top bottled water brands to see which were the most contaminated with plastic—and the results may shock you.

Researchers at the State University of New York, commissioned by the non-profit Orb Media, tested 259 bottles of eleven top brands of bottled water for the presence of microscopic plastic. Only seventeen of the 259 bottles were free of microplastic particles, and none of the brands were consistently free of plastic in the water. The most contaminated brands were Nestle Pure Life, Bisleri, Gerolsteiner, Aqua, and Epura; the least contaminated brands were San Pellegrino, Evian, Dasani, Wahaha, and Minalba.

Orb Media points out that if someone were to drink a liter of bottled water each day they might be consuming tens of thousands of microplastic particles in a year. These particles can lodge in the intestinal wall and can be small enough to cross the gut into the body. Microplastics aren’t just found in bottled water: a German study found them in all beers that were tested, and a French study even found them in the air.

The scariest part of this issue is that no one knows the impact of microplastics on human health; there have been zero studies on the effects of microplastic consumption by humans. Microplastic particles generally bind with toxins that don’t dissolve, so these particles could be carrying environmental pollutants like mercury or pesticides into our bodies.  There is also evidence that phthalates, chemicals found in plastics, affect hormones and metabolism, leading to weight gain: drinking bottled water could be making us fat!

This is a follow-up story to another report issued by Orb Media which found that 94% of tap water in the US was contaminated with plastic fibers.

Consumers should take heed of this report. It’s best to drink filtered spring water from glass, rather than plastic, bottles. Beware, too, of aluminum or other metal water bottles, which have been found to leak BPA at astonishing levels.

Action Alert! Tell the EPA and Congress to study the effects of microplastic particles on human health, and to protect consumers accordingly. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2rLrqys via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2L50PV3

HPV Vaccine Linked to Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome?

Complaint alleges that Merck “deceitfully withheld, failed to provide, and concealed from consumers” important information regarding the safety and effectiveness of the HPV vaccine. Action Alert!

The HPV vaccine is among the most dangerous vaccines on the market—according to the World Health Organization’s drug monitoring database, the vaccine is associated with 82,000 total adverse events. Despite the danger of this vaccine, some states have mandated its use for school children (Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, DC) and many others are considering similar mandates. The family of a girl who believes she was injured by the vaccine is fighting back and suing Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, for fraud, deceit, and negligence.

Between 2010 and 2011, the sixteen-year-old received three injections of Gardasil. After the third shot she experienced a severe adverse reaction. It wasn’t until 2015 that she was diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), which is characterized by increased heart rate, drop in blood pressure, and dizziness upon standing up. In 2016 the young girl was further diagnosed with small fiber neuropathy—damage to small nerve fibers which can cause a wide variety of sensory symptoms including insensitivity to pain. This is not an isolated case. Our friends at ANH-International highlighted a World Health Organization study which suggested that the HPV vaccination produced clusters of serious adverse events, including POTS.

The girl’s family firmly believes these health problems were a result of HPV vaccination with Gardasil and have sued Merck.

The complaint also alleges that Merck failed to disclose other important information to consumers when marketing Gardasil, including that the vaccine was only effective against certain strains of HPV, that the vaccine is not effective once an individual is infected with the virus, that there are other existing methods that are effective in avoiding HPV viral infections, and more.

The family’s legal counsel succeeded in getting a Science Day Hearing, in which both the plaintiff and defendant present the scientific arguments supporting their case.

We hope the court weighs the facts and the science without the usual bias towards vaccine manufacturers, but this case will certainly be an uphill battle for the family. Recall that Congress shielded vaccine-makers from legal liability for the damage caused by their products in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Instead, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created, a $2.5 billion fund derived from a 75-cent-per-dose tax on vaccines. Parents seeking damages must go through the Vaccine Court, which itself is an uphill battle. Decisions in these cases are not made by a jury of peers, but by Special Masters, who are appointed by judges in the US Court of Federal Claims for four years. It can also be an incredibly lengthy process: a review of the data found that the vaccine court system failed to adjudicate petitions in a timely manner—Congress established that each case should take a maximum of 240 days, when in reality the average adjudication time is five years. But the problem is that vaccine-injured families, who are saddled with medical bills, need help in the short term, not in five years.

Warnings about the danger of the HPV vaccine are not just coming from distraught parents and injured children. A former Merck scientist predicted that Gardasil

will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers.

The adverse event reporting data seems to be proving him correct.

For more information about the HPV vaccine, how it was marketed, and the damage it is causing around the world, check out our new documentary, Manufactured Crisis: HPV, Hype, and Horror.

As more information that demonstrates the dangers of vaccines comes to light, it is increasingly important to protect vaccine exemptions at the state level, as well as to fight vaccine mandates. Parents and patients should be given the right to choose, and this right is increasingly under attack in states across the country.

Action Alert! Check to see if your state is listed below and click the link to protect vaccine choice in your state! Please send your message immediately. 

CA

IL

MN

MO

NJ

NY

OH

OK

PA

RI

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2wGQviO via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2GolRu3

Action Alert: Tell EPA to Investigate Microplastics in Bottled Water

http://default.salsalabs.org/api/widget/template/f5eb5cf1-113b-433b-8ed1-28ba8950df37/?tId=88238cc0-5297-4144-9367-5486b9719f9d

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2L7gKCi via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2L50IZD

Action Alert: Oppose the Farm Bill

http://default.salsalabs.org/api/widget/template/894035f7-945e-4f84-a8fd-53e4b60154c2/?tId=b4399119-8060-4aa9-8dd6-f03d2790a81d

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2IqCbfR via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2GmtFg0

Save Bioidenticals

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2I57kJE via Aloe for Health

from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2ryjuR2

Save Bioidenticals

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2I57kJE via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2wsPYkD

Forget This Dangerous Alzheimer’s Treatment

We have a safer (and better) answer. But will the government spread the good news? Action Alert!

A new study suggests that, if started early enough, a daily regimen of non-prescription ibuprofen (a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, or NSAID) can prevent the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. Whether or not it’s true, it’s a dangerous prescription—especially considering there are much safer natural alternatives that have shown a lot of promise.

Consider the safety profile of NSAIDs. One study conservatively estimated that 107,000 people are hospitalized each year for NSAID-related gastrointestinal complications and “at least 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur each year among arthritis patients alone.” Other studies have shown that NSAIDs increase the risk of heart failure by 20% and cause half of all bleeding ulcers.

Nor does Big Pharma seem to have any answers. The last few years have seen a number of high-profile failures for conventional medical Alzheimer’s treatments.

Luckily, there is hope. We reported previously that coconut oil has shown promise in reversing the effects of the disease. That article centered on Mary Newport, MD, who, in the course of treating her husband, found that with Alzheimer’s disease, certain brain cells may have difficulty utilizing glucose (energy made from carbs/sugar), the brain’s principal source of energy. Without fuel, these precious neurons may begin to die.

There is an alternative energy source for brain cells—ketones (energy made from fats). One way to produce ketones is by eliminating carbohydrates from the diet completely. Another way is to consume oils that have medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs). When MCT oil is digested, the liver converts it into ketones and releases them directly into the bloodstream. These ketones can then serve as the fuel for damaged brain cells that cannot utilize glucose.

When MCT oil is metabolized, the ketones which the body creates may, according to the latest research, not only protect against the incidence of Alzheimer’s, but may actually reverse it. Moreover, this is also a potential treatment for Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, multiple sclerosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease), drug-resistant epilepsy, brittle type I diabetes, and type II (insulin-resistant) diabetes.

While there haven’t been large scale clinical trials testing coconut oil’s effect on Alzheimer’s (funding such trials has been an issue since coconut oil can’t be patented and make money for Big Pharma), there are studies that support this approach. For instance, high fat diets, ketone bodies, and MCTs have been shown to offer neuroprotective benefits for a wide range of diseases such as dementia, Parkinson’s, stroke, and traumatic brain injury; high fat diets that include MCTs can delay brain aging; and coconut oil has been shown to reduce beta-amyloid plaques associated with Alzheimer’s.

It’s pretty shocking that conventional medicine is encouraging people to take NSAIDs every day, given the risks. It’s another example of how a cheap, safe, and effective medicine like coconut oil is throttled in our medical system—because it can’t make drug companies rich. In fact, the FDA recommends that people limit their intake of saturated fats like coconut oil based on the outdated and incorrect notion that these fats increase the risk of cardiovascular disease (for more on this issue, check out our past coverage here).

Action Alert! Tell the FDA, with a copy to Congress, that more research should be done on coconut oil for treating Alzheimer’s. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2FYQOoL via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2KLEFaa

USDA Proposes to Hide Genetic Engineering from the Public

This might be our last chance to fix this terrible rule. Action Alert!

In 2016 Congress ignored hundreds of thousands of ANH activists and the majority of Americans, who wanted clear labeling of GMO foods, when they passed a “mandatory” labeling bill that would allow food companies to hide this information in scannable QR codes.  We pointed out at the time that mandating a scannable code is meaningless and subverts the whole point of the law, because only 16% of consumers have ever scanned a QR code for any purpose.  Now the USDA is seeking public input on a number of questions that will affect how the law is implemented, and it appears that the law could be gutted even further.

One of the biggest problems with the proposal is that it eliminates use of the word “GMO” altogether and uses the term “bioengineered” instead. Food that is GMO won’t be labeled as such: it will be “bioengineered” or “BE.” This is straight out of an Orwellian playbook. Many Americans know the term “GMO” and can connect it to the labeling debate—so the government decides to use a different term that sounds more innocuous. If the government was actually concerned with communicating information clearly to consumers, they would simply use the term “GMO” and not other terminology with which Americans may not be familiar.

Another crucial issue is the government’s definition of what a “bioengineered food” is. The proposed rule defines a bioengineered food as a food that “contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques and for which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature”—essentially, combining DNA from two different sources, usually two different organisms.

This definition is entirely inadequate to capture all the different techniques for genetically modifying food that are currently being used or are in development. Gene-editing using CRISPR is one example, where certain enzymes are used like scissors to cut and insert new DNA sequences. This technology is not covered under the proposed labeling rule; the USDA has even said that it does not intend to regulate gene-edited crops. This is unacceptable. As we’ve written before, we are in the Wild West of genetic manipulation, hacking, and experimentation, and we need laws that can keep up with these advances. If the proposed rule defines “bioengineered” so narrowly, it will soon be obsolete and meaningless. “Bioengineered” should be defined to capture the entire gambit of technologies that are used to tamper with the genetic makeup of our food, including gene-editing.

There are two other crucial points USDA is seeking public comment on:

Highly Refined Foods. Some stakeholders, likely from the food industry, are arguing that certain highly refined foods should not have to be labeled as containing GMO ingredients. They contend that, for instance, refined sugar produced from GMO sugarbeets is, at the end of the refining process, chemically identical to refined sugar produced from non-GMO sugarbeets.

USDA is also considering the opposite position. Just because current testing techniques cannot detect GMO material in a finished product does not mean there is no modified genetic material in the food. The whole point of a GMO labeling law is to provide consumers with information, so those who wish to avoid GMO foods can easily do so. If refined foods made from GMO ingredients are exempted, the spirit of the law is undermined.

Threshold for GMO foods. USDA is considering three possibilities for the threshold level for determining which foods are exempt from labeling. The first option would allow an ingredient in a food to have up to 5% of its total weight comprised of GMO material, as long as the presence of GMO substances is “inadvertent or technically unavoidable” to help account for cross-contamination in the supply chain. The second option is the same, except the 5% number is reduced to 0.9%. The last (and worst) option would allow a small amount of GMO ingredients to be in a food (USDA suggests up to 5% of the total weight of the food) before that food must be labeled. USDA admits that the third option would significantly decrease the number of foods subject to disclosure.

All three of these options would undermine a consumer’s right to know. Option two might be the lesser of the evils, since due to cross-contamination it is almost impossible to guarantee a food is 100% GMO-free—and if the threshold were zero, virtually everything would be labeled, and consumers wouldn’t have meaningful information.  Allowing 5% of a product to be GMO without being labeled, however, is preposterous.

USDA is also considering what symbol should be used on food labels to communicate to consumers that it is “bioengineered”. Two of the three symbols being considered are essentially “smiley faces,” with the letters “b” and “e” (for bioengineered) acting as the eyes (you can see the symbols here). Monsanto couldn’t have dreamed of a better symbol themselves! It’s the government’s position that GMO foods are no safer or more dangerous than conventional foods—but that doesn’t mean the symbol should evoke a smiling face!

Finally, the enforcement mechanisms in the law are entirely inadequate. The legislation did not authorize civil or federal penalties for violating the labeling law, so it is up to individual states to impose fines for violating the law if they choose to do so. The USDA does not even have the power to recall products that do not follow the labeling law.

Congress and the USDA have sold out consumers, but we can prevent Big Food and their government cronies from further undermining the public’s right to know if we make our voices heard on this rule.

Action Alert! Write to USDA, with a copy to Congress, and tell them to not to further dilute this already bad GMO labeling bill.   Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2KPmNeA via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2G055l4