FDA Fires Direct Shot at Small, Local, Artisanal Food Producers

The FDA is proposing a new regulation that could shutter the doors of your favorite artisanal food producers. Action Alert!

When the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was originally proposed in 2010, we and many other organizations were troubled. Small-farm and organic food advocates warned that the legislation would destroy their industry under a mountain of paperwork and other onerous requirements.

Working with the natural health community, ANH-USA helped win the inclusion of an amendment from Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Kay Hagan (D-NC), which exempted producers making less than $500,000 a year in sales who also sold most of their food locally. This wasn’t easy. Big farms and processed food companies and their allies at the USDA and FDA did not like it—they feel threatened by competition from natural food producers.

It is not surprising but it is disappointing that the FDA has simply ignored the intent of the Tester-Hagan amendment in a new rule it has proposed. In interpreting the amended FSMA, FDA determined that only food produced on a farm and then sold locally at a farmer’s market or roadside stand would qualify. This interpretation leaves out artisanal food producers who make bread, cheese, oils, or other prepared foods to be sold locally. These producers will now be responsible for complying with the complicated and burdensome FSMA rules, which could lead to many of them having to close down their business.

Action Alert! Submit a public comment to the FDA urging them to comply with the intent of the Tester-Hagan amendment and exempt ALL facilities that make less than $500,000 a year in sales who also sell most of their food locally. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1HJglvN via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1cweqlu

Bad Vaccine Bill on the Fast Track in California

If it becomes law, California’s SB 277 will likely spread to other states across the country. State-based Action Alerts!

Legislation to eliminate all non-medical vaccine exemptions has cleared the California Senate and is now moving to the state Assembly, where it faces an even easier path to passage. In the Senate, it needed to be voted on by three separate policy committees before going before the full body. Thanks to efforts by Assembly Democrats, the bill will only need to go through one policy committee in the Assembly before getting a full floor vote.

The bill eliminates all non-medical exemptions from the requirement that children receive vaccines for certain diseases in order to enroll in any public or private elementary or secondary school or daycare center.

Not only are proponents of SB 277 removing procedural hurdles in the hopes of speeding passage, they are also sending clear messages to those who would stand in their way. The California Chiropractic Association has been an outspoken opponent of the effort to mandate vaccinations. As budget negotiations come to an end for California’s next fiscal year, budget subcommittees from both chambers voted to restore six of seven optional Medi-Cal benefits that are currently unfunded. The one benefit that was left out? Chiropractic services.

Of course, the legislators responsible for leaving chiropractors out of the budget deny allegations that the decision was in retaliation for opposing the vaccine bill. We’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

Legislators speeding this bill to passage are not scientists, yet they’re telling everyone that the scientific evidence is unambiguous—that vaccines are 100% safe, and anyone who believes otherwise is a mentally unbalanced “anti-vaxer.” They believe this gives them the right to take away a parent’s right to make choices about their children’s health. Of course, campaign donations by Big Pharma have nothing to do with it.

In fact, there is ample evidence that suggests vaccines are not without risk and can have a significant impact on children’s health. You don’t have to be against vaccination in general to have doubts about the current vaccination regime, which requires more and more shots to be given at the same time, and at an earlier age than ever before. There are plenty of reasons to reconsider this approach:

• One study that compared vaccinated to unvaccinated boys found that vaccinated boys were 155% more likely to have a neurological disorder, 224% more likely to have ADHD, and 61% more likely to have autism.
• A Dutch study found that vaccinated children had higher incidences of a number of illnesses and other health indicators compared to unvaccinated children in the first five years of life. Vaccinated children had high incidences of chronic eczema, allergic reactions, ADHD, ear infections, throat inflammation, and were more likely to be sickly.
• A study in New Zealand found similar results, with vaccinated children having higher incidences of asthma and eczema, and an astonishing tenfold increase in the likelihood of tonsillitis.

Combine these studies with the slew of other studies we’ve covered in the past, and you begin to wonder at the supposed “scientific consensus” on the safety of the present vaccination regime being touted by those who would remove our freedom of choice.

In light of this significant body of evidence that conflicts with the mainstream narrative about vaccines, parents’ right to make informed choices concerning their own children’s health must be preserved.

Now that the government has removed any legal liability for vaccine manufacturers, and if they continue to subsidize vaccine development and production (thus guaranteeing high profits), and make mandates such as this one with virtually no exceptions, what incentive will the pharmaceutical industry have to invest money to make vaccines safer? What incentive will government have to reconsider the schedule?

Time is running out to stop SB 277. We must send a clear message to legislators in California, as well as all state legislatures that are considering removing exemptions to vaccines, that SB 277 will cause irreparable harm if it becomes law. This concerns all of us: if SB 277 becomes law, it could embolden state and even federal legislators to advance legislation of their own.

Action Alert! California residents, write to your representative in the Assembly and urge them NOT to vote for SB 277! Please send your message immediately

State-based Action Alerts! Look below for your state, and write to your legislators, urging them NOT to remove important exemptions to vaccination. Please send your message immediately.

Connecticut
Maine–dead
Minnesota
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island–dead
Texas

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1cwbNA3 via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1G2XXBb

Government Data on Vaccine Injuries

Search the government’s own vaccine injury website, and come to your own conclusions.

Proponents of the government’s vaccine regime continually point to the sterling safety record of vaccines in an attempt to ensure worried parents that nothing will happen to their children. Those who merely question the safety of the government schedule are marginalized by the mainstream media through any number of pejorative names.

What government health officials do not talk about is the existence of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. After a string of lawsuits in the 1980s imperiled vaccine profits, vaccine manufacturers threatened to leave the US market. The government responded by relieving vaccine manufacturers of all legal liability when patients suffered an adverse reaction from a vaccine. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was set up in 1988 as a substitute to give support to families who were harmed by vaccines.

Information on the number of claims made to the VICP, and the number of those claims that were compensated, through 2013, are available on the government’s website. Although the numbers likely understate the reality, the website is an interesting resource for those seeking information on vaccines.

The government data show that, since 1988, the VICP has awarded almost $3 billion to over 4,000 families who were harmed by vaccines—even though the window to file a claim is so tight that many families miss it, and it is often hard to demonstrate a connection between the shot and the ensuing health issue. In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) receives an average of 30,000 reports each year, 13% of which are considered “serious”—that is, associated with “disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death.” The government’s Center for Disease Control (CDC) dismisses these reports because they are not “peer reviewed,” but also refuses to provide the peer review needed.

A startling new report has come to our attention by an investigative reporter, whose article was picked up by the Drudge Report, though we haven’t been able to independently verify the information yet. Her report claims that the government removed the latest data from their website to cover up the recent sharp rise in awards for those who made claims to the VICP. The reporter notes that

Since January of 2014, twice as many victims have won court decisions than the previous eight years combined. In these court decisions, a judge ruled the evidence showed vaccines “more likely than not” caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

She also reports that removing the most recent data conceals the fact that the number of vaccine injury cases the government has “conceded” have increased 55% in one year.

We will continue to seek to verify this report independently and will let our readers know more when we have additional information.

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1cwbNA5 via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1G2XZJb

Action Alert: FDA and Artisanal Food Prodcers

Related Article: 

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Q4AypI via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1G2XZcp

Big Pharma Meds Turned Her into a “Walking Zombie,” Unable to Have a Child

But natural medicine transformed her into a happy, energetic mother.

This is a story about one couple who were given one of the greatest gifts of all: the child they wanted but were told they could not have. (Note: names have been changed to protect the privacy of the family involved.)

This month, Tom and Jessica will have been married for twelve years. Since her late twenties, Jessica had bouts with psoriatic arthritis, an autoimmune disease in which the body’s immune system attacks the joints, resulting in inflammation that triggers pain, stiffness, and swelling.

Jessica believes that her autoimmune issues were triggered by a vaccine she received. She had cut her finger badly and went to the hospital. Having reacted poorly to vaccines in previous years, Jessica was apprehensive when the doctor wanted to give her a tetanus shot. The doctor dismissed her misgivings and strong-armed her into getting the vaccine despite her concerns. A week later, her symptoms began.

Conventional medicine treats psoriatic arthritis with two kinds of drugs: immunosuppressants and anti-inflammatories. The underlying thinking is simple: the body’s immune system is attacking healthy tissue, so conventional medicine’s answer is to dial down—i.e., suppress—the immune system itself and then treat the painful symptoms, while doing nothing to address the source of the disease.

Jessica’s doctor put her on Enbrel, an anti-inflammatory, and methotrexate, an immunosuppressant. Some of Enbrel’s side effects include dizziness, extreme fatigue, hair loss, severe headache, mood changes, unsteadiness, and vision changes. Methotrexate is used in chemotherapy and is a commonly used drug in medical abortions. Side effects include mouth sores, diarrhea, signs of liver failure, easy bruising or bleeding, enlarged glands or lymph nodes, and bone pain. As an immunosuppressant, the drug also leaves patients extremely susceptible to infection.

While taking these medications, Jessica described herself as a “walking zombie.” She could use her joints, but her life was “completely shot,” consisting of little more than waking up, going to work, coming home, and going to bed. The drugs completely sapped her of energy. Looking back, Jessica remembered being sick and on antibiotics for almost the entire time she was on these drugs, dealing with upper respiratory infection after upper respiratory infection since the drugs had basically shut down her immune system. She was constantly going to the doctor so he could monitor her progress, since the long-term side effects of the drugs she was on were cancer and liver failure. The doctor, she said, was checking to see if her organs had failed yet.

To make matters even worse, Tom and Jessica wanted to have a child, a desire made impossible by the fact that Jessica was regularly ingesting an abortifacient drug.

At this point, Tom made a suggestion to Jessica. Tom is an employee of Parker Hannifin, a Fortune 500 company that specializes in motion control technologies like aerospace, climate control, hydraulics, and more. Parker Hannifin distinguishes itself by offering its employees access to natural medicine through the company’s health insurance. The benefit program covers 80% of the costs of various integrative health remedies.

Tom encouraged Jessica to take advantage of the program and see the medical director of the integrative health program at Parker Hannifin.

This doctor ordered a full workup including blood, urine, and hair tests to see if Jessica’s nutrient levels were where they should be. He gave her vitamin D and B12 injections, recommended food-based supplements like curcumin, and in addition put her on a complete multivitamin, DHA, iodine, probiotics, boswellia, maca, matcha, and a daily green smoothie. His health coaches advised Jessica on which foods she should eat and which she should avoid. They recommended a plant-based diet of whole e vegetables and fruits, fermented foods to bolster gut health, lots of sun, and plenty of exercise.

At first, Jessica was skeptical. With conventional medicine, doctors tell us to take this pill and that one, and wait to get better. But this integrative doctor is instead telling her to revamp her diet and get plenty of sun and exercise. How was that going to cure a disease?

One of the first things Jessica noticed was the responsibility that this treatment placed on her. No longer was treatment a passive procedure of taking a pill and waiting—it was making a complete change in lifestyle. She remembers complaining as she went through the exercise regimen and forced herself to go outside despite her fatigue. After a while, she undertook a twenty-one-day cleanse to clear her blood of toxins, where she ate little else but smoothies and plants.

But it paid off. She didn’t experience immediate results, and the recovery was slow—but it eventually worked. And it was a complete cure.

After adhering to the recommended treatments, Jessica fully recovered and no longer had symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. She was healthy and full of energy. Now her and her husband’s attention could turn to having a child. Even though Jessica was no longer taking methotrexate, she was still worried—women in her family had a history of fertility issues. But one month after her last visit to her new doctor, Jessica was pregnant with a baby girl, who is now just about a year old.

Where conventional medicine prescribed Jessica drugs that relieved the pain in her joints but destroyed her quality of life and prevented her from having a child, natural medicine led to a full recovery and helped her get healthy enough to have a baby.

In our Pulse of Natural Health newsletter, we often cover pressing issues related to natural health, whether it’s pending federal legislation, the latest FDA malfeasance, or the scientific evidence in support of natural health alternatives to conventional remedies. But as crucial as facts and figures are, they can also be abstract and impersonal. To experience firsthand the transformative power of natural medicine is something else entirely.

Please visit our “Tell Your Story” page to read other people’s stories of the power of natural healthcare, and submit your own!

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1LGFbQH via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1LEjm3C

Pro-GMO “DARK Act” Aims to Keep Citizens in the Dark about What’s in Their Food

A Senate version of Big Food’s voluntary GMO labeling bill is in the works, now that the terrible Pompeo bill is gaining steam. Action Alert!

A few weeks ago, we told you about legislation that would let food producers decide whether to label their products that contain genetically engineered or modified ingredients. It’s being jokingly called the Deny Americans’ Right to Know Act (the “DARK Act”) by pro-labeling advocates, because if HR 1599, the deceptively named Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 sponsored by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-CA) passes, it would preempt any state laws mandating the labeling of foods containing GM ingredients.

Unfortunately, the bill is gaining bipartisan support: since it was introduced, forty-seven House members have signed on, including twelve Democrats.

Not only is voluntary labeling legislation gaining momentum in the House, it now has a champion in the Senate as well. Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) has indicated that his office is also preparing a voluntary GMO labeling bill that would preempt state efforts. Sen. Hoeven’s bill would use the USDA to implement the bill (Pompeo’s bill uses the FDA), placing it under the jurisdiction of the Senate Agricultural Committee—whose chair, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), has received the second highest amount of money from the agricultural services and products sector and is among the top three senators receiving money from the food processing and sales sector.

This is all the more troubling considering the state of mandatory GMO labeling legislation. In the Senate, the Boxer-Blumenthal bill that we favor has no Republican support; the bill’s counterpart in the House, sponsored by Rep. DeFazio (D-OR), has only one Republican cosponsor. Without bipartisan report, neither version is likely to move.

Rep. Pompeo (and other supporters of GMOs and GMO-related special interests) continue to ignore the impact of GMOs on our health and environment while intentionally misleading the public.

In a recent op-ed in Roll Call, the daily Capitol Hill newspaper, Rep. Pompeo touts the same—now thoroughly debunked—myths that have been used for years to mislead the public into thinking that GMOs are biotech’s great gift to humanity. To prove that GMOs are “ushering in a new world of possibilities,” Pompeo makes a number of remarkable claims.

First, Pompeo argues that GMOs are decreasing pesticide usage, citing a 2003 figure showing a 46.4 million pound reduction that year. The trouble is that the truth is the exact opposite, as confirmed by a former senior scientist at the EPA’s Office of Research and Development. In a paper released last September, Dr. Ramon Seidler wrote,

Much has been written by scientific and mainstream media about the advantages of using genetically engineered (GE) crops because, according to popular belief, these crops require significantly less pesticide to control weed and insect pests….These accounts are inaccurate and rely on annual pesticide and application rates and volumes reported prior to 2010, when widespread resistance began to emerge in “superweeds” and “superinsects”….These reports also ignore the now widespread practice of coating seeds in systemic pesticides, which has emerged in the past ten years. This lack of journalistic and scientific integrity distorts the facts on the ground.

Second, Pompeo makes the familiar argument about GMOs increasing crop yields. We covered this claim, one of biotech’s favorites (“GMOs will feed the world!”), a few years back in an in-depth report. The evidence suggests that, overall, corn and soybean yields have risen over the past fifteen years, but this is mainly because of traditional breeding or improvement in agricultural practices. According to a Union of Concerned Scientists report, several recent studies show that organic and low-external-input farming methods (i.e., using reduced amounts of fertilizer and pesticides) can improve yield by over 100% in those countries, along with greater health benefits.

Next, Pompeo cites research projects that have affirmed the safety of GMOs. The fact is, there have been no epidemiological studies done on GMOs, nor any scientific consensus on their safety. Most of the studies showing GMOs to be safe have been done by the biotech companies themselves.

(Note: you can find all of this information and more on our GMO Fact Check site.)

By laboring to prove the benefits of GMOs by bringing up these arguments, proponents of biotech crops are diverting attention from the main issue. This debate is about consumers’ right to know what’s in their food, and the bottom line is this: the Pompeo and Hoeven bills, supported by biotech and Big Food giants like Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association, keep consumers in the dark. We must prevent this from becoming law. The 93% of Americans who support labeling foods with GMOs must make their voices heard.

Action Alert! Write your senators and representatives, and tell them consumers have a right to know what’s in their food and that you support the mandatory labeling of GMOs. Urge them NOT to support the House and Senate bills that would leave it up to food companies to decide whether or not to label GMOs. Please send your message immediately!

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1LGFbAj via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1dvLT0T

LabCorp To Allow Patients to Order Tests Online

This is bigger news than it might seem: advanced testing is one of the pillars of natural health and integrated medicine, along with diet, supplements, and lifestyle. Action Alert!

Regular readers will remember our coverage of Theranos, a biotech company that offers diagnostic tests to consumers at (as of now) select Walgreens stores, without a doctor’s order, for a fraction of the cost, a fraction of the wait time, and with more accurate results.

Seeing an increasing demand from patients who take a more hands-on approach to their healthcare, LabCorp, one of the largest diagnostic companies in the US, will now allow consumers to order tests online.

The landscape is rapidly shifting from what it once was. Previously you would visit a LabCorp or Quest Diagnostics facility, present the order from your doctor, wait, and then have a vial of blood drawn for each test. The results were sent to your doctor in three to seven days, so you had to see your doctor a second time to learn the results and what they mean. The total bill may be near a thousand dollars for an incomplete and often dated battery of tests. Now, LabCorp will let a patient go online to order tests, with or without a doctor’s approval, and view the results on the Internet.

It is one thing for Theranos, a relatively small startup doing extremely exciting work, to offer such tests; it’s quite another for a company the size of LabCorp to start offering this kind of service. It should signal to others in the industry that this is the way the diagnostics industry is heading.

Other commentators have noted the rapid rise of consumer demand for devices that monitor health information, like FitBit and the Apple Watch. The availability of easily accessible, cheap, and accurate information will empower consumers to become even more involved in their health. A person might read an article about the importance of vitamin D in the morning and, on the spur of the moment, order a vitamin D 25-OH test, thus providing a near-immediate answer to the question of his or her own vitamin D level.

Theranos seems to be the more affordable and convenient service, but LabCorp’s decision as an industry giant to offer more freedom to the consumer is nothing short of a victory for individualized medicine.

A victory, that is, so long as the government does not interfere with these technologies. As we’ve previously reported, the FDA is attempting to extend its regulatory reach to cover laboratory-developed tests (LDTs), and instead of going through the normal rulemaking process, the agency issued a draft guidance last October outlining its stance on LDTs. This is a common FDA maneuver to remove the public entirely from the process, as we’ve seen when it issued a draft guidance on new dietary ingredients.

One additional note. Last week, we reported on the latest draft of the 21st Century Cures bill. One of the issues still being negotiated is whether, if at all, to include provisions on LDTs—something ANH-USA would likely support, since the FDA is trying to regulate LDTs without congressional approval. As specific provisions of the bill come into clearer focus, we will be sure to update our readers.

Tests like this are the future of medicine. People are already able to test for and spot cancers long before they manifest themselves using current methods. But few doctors, much less consumers, know about the tests. Testing can already help prevent diabetes, heart and blood vessel illness, prostate cancer, and other diseases. Making these tests more affordable and accessible to consumers will help to move medicine back to where it should be: under consumer control.

Action Alert! Write to the sponsors of the 21st Century Cures bill and encourage them to include provisions about increasing the availability of diagnostic tests. Even if you sent an earlier message about the 21st Century Cures bill, send another: we have updated the language of our Action Alert to specifically include laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1LEafzU via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1LEjnVj