Petition: Tell the White House to say NO to Dow’s Agent Orange GMO corn

Just in time for the new year, the Dow Chemical Company is quietly trying to convince the federal government to deregulate a new variety of genetically-modified (GM) corn that is resistant to 2,4-D, a chemical component that made up roughly half of the Agent Orange chemical…

Petition: Tell the White House to say NO to Dow’s Agent Orange GMO corn

Just in time for the new year, the Dow Chemical Company is quietly trying to convince the federal government to deregulate a new variety of genetically-modified (GM) corn that is resistant to 2,4-D, a chemical component that made up roughly half of the Agent Orange chemical…

Study confirms GMO herbicide glyphosate contaminates groundwater supplies

Contrary to claims made by the chemical industry and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it does not leach into groundwater, the deadly herbicide glyphosate, also known as Roundup, has been found to be fully capable of contaminating groundwater supplies…

Did you know? Microwave popcorn gives off a toxic, lung-damaging gas when cooked

(NaturalNews) You might be reassured to learn that the buttery flavor in microwave popcorn typically comes from a chemical actually found in butter, but you shouldn’t be. This chemical, called diacetyl , is so toxic that it commonly destroys the lungs of workers in microwave popcorn factories, afflicting them with the crippling and irreversible disease known as bronchiolitis obliterans . Bronchiolitis obliterans is so rare outside of this context that it has become more commonly known as “popcorn lung,” after the primary cause of the disease. Regulators and health professionals have known of this risk for decades, but always assumed that it would only affect people breathing in especially high concentrations in factory settings. Then in 2007, a man who regularly ate two bags of microwave popcorn every day was diagnosed with popcorn lung, indicating that diacetyl enters the air and lungs when microwave popcorn is cooked. Anxious to reassure consumers, most microwave popcorn companies phased out diacetyl — only to replace it with chemicals that have the same effects. Today, you can still find diacetyl in many flavored snack foods and even in some so-called “natural” foods. Make sure you read the ingredients of any food you intend to consume, and make sure it contains no diacetyl (and no “yeast extract” for that matter, either). Sources: http://www.naturalnews.com/024460_popcorn_disease_diacetyl.html http://www.naturalnews.com/023771_popcorn_diacetyl_lung.html http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe-to-make-popcorn/19273632 Source: 25 Amazing Facts About Food , authored by Mike Adams and David Guiterrez. This report reveals surprising things about where your food comes from and what’s really in it! Download the full report (FREE) by clicking here . Inside, you’ll learn 24 more amazing but true facts about foods, beverages and food ingredients. Instant download of the complete PDF. All 25 facts are documented and true.

Exposed: California officials manipulated safety data on methyl iodide, ignored scientist warnings against approving deadly strawberry chemical

(NaturalNews) Many of those plump, juicy strawberries found on produce section shelves are hiding a deadly little secret. In 2010, regulators in California, where over 90 percent of conventional strawberries are grown, quietly approved the use of toxic methyl iodide as a fruit pesticide after the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved it nationally. But new evidence has now surfaced that government officials twisted study data to make the chemical falsely appear safe in order to get it approved — and individuals everywhere are now increasingly demanding that methyl iodide be banned. A recent report from Mother Jones explains that the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) cherry-picked data from varying studies on methyl iodide in order to paint the chemical in an artificially positive light. The agency then used this deceptive data to justify allowing smaller buffer zones between farms that use methyl iodide and farms that do not use methyl iodide. DPR also used the flawed data to increase the permitted spray concentration maximum for the chemical. Early on, DPR’s own scientists decried the agency’s intended actions, having noted in an internal memo that numbers cited in the agency’s report endorsing methyl iodide had been extracted from “different risk assessment methodologies that are not interchangeable.” They added that such data was “not scientifically credible,” and that any data of that type is only accurate when compiled from the same source. But DPR refused to listen to these scientists, and instead approved methyl iodide in spite of the evidence against it. Not long after, environmental protection groups, farmers, and ordinary citizens together sparked a burgeoning battle to force the state to ban methyl iodide, including a recent rally that took place on the steps of the California State Capital. Methyl iodide causes miscarriages, thyroid dysfunction, cancer Arysta LifeScience, the chemical company that produces methyl iodide, claims that it is largely safe, and that the neurotoxic damage it can cause is “transient.” But according to data cited by leading scientists, this is simply not the case, and permanent brain damage can ensue from exposure to methyl iodide. Back in 2007 before methyl iodide’s approval, a group of more than 35 esteemed scientists wrote a letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urging it to deny approval for the chemical on the grounds that it is “highly toxic,” and has a “significant adverse impact on public health.” After methyl iodide was approved anyway, the same group sent another letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson once again urging the agency to withdraw approval for the chemical (http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/Jackson_MeI_5-7-11_Final-1.pdf). “Due to the potent toxicity of methyl iodide, its transport and ultimate fate in the environment, adequate control of human exposure would be difficult, if not impossible,” wrote scientists from California’s Scientific Review Committee (SRC) concerning methyl iodide. “We have concluded there is little doubt that the compound possesses significant toxicity.” SRC’s thorough report also notes that, despite claims made by Arysta about methyl iodide’s supposedly transient neurotoxicity, “no robust studies of neurotoxicity (were) actually conducted.” If they had been, it would have been revealed, of course, that methyl iodide is a highly neurotoxic substance that is known and recognized by the state of California to cause cancer (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single061308.pdf). Methyl iodide, of course, is the same chemical that scientists have used to deliberately create cancer cells in laboratories for research purposes that is how powerfully dangerous it is! The Pesticide Action Network – North America (PANNA) also notes that methyl iodide is responsible for causing late-term miscarriages as well, especially at the 100 pounds (lbs) per acre spread rate to which it has been approved for California strawberries (http://www.panna.org/cancer-free-strawberries). Methyl iodide has no legitimate place in American agriculture On December 30, 2010, Earthjustice and California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. filed a lawsuit against DPR for approving of methyl iodide, which ignored all available evidence against the chemical, as well as the more than 53,000 comments submitted by Californians against the chemical’s use. The use of methyl iodide violates the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Birth Defects Prevention Act, and the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act, according to the suit. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of PANNA and numerous other groups representing farmers and consumers, many of whom stand to be affected most by the pumping of soils with toxic methyl iodide gas. Many of the farm fields that spray methyl iodide are located directly near homes and schools, where high-risk individuals like pregnant mothers and young children face routine exposure. In truth, there really is no need to use methyl iodide on strawberries, peppers, or any of the other varieties of produce for which it has been approved. Several large strawberry growers, including Swanton Berry, Driscoll’s, and Martinez Farms, have been able to develop thriving organic strawberry operations that require no pesticides — surely the rest can make modifications to avoid pumping toxic poisons into the soils of one of America’s major produce production regions. Sources for this story include: http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/08/california-methyl-iodide-scientists http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/07/methyl-iodide-controversy_n_602904.html http://www.pesticidereform.org/article.php?id=342

New EPA-approved DuPont herbicide linked to widespread killing of trees, authorities unconcerned

(NaturalNews) The DuPont chemical company recently received approval from the US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) for its new herbicide Imprelis (aminocyclopyrachlor), which has been alleged as an “environmentally friendly” alternative to other herbicides. However, a recent New York Times (NYT) report implicates the herbicide in causing the widespread deaths of thousands of trees across the country, including Norway spruces, eastern white pines, willows, poplars, and conifers. DuPont originally designed Imprelis with the stated intent to kill lawn weeds like dandelion and clover — both of these “weeds” happen to be highly nutritious foods, by the way (http://www.naturalnews.com/dandelion.html) — because, frankly, most people want their lawns to be perfectly homogenous in every way. But the chemical, despite being marketed as safe for the environment, is killing off trees as well, which has caused quite an uproar. The NYT report indicates that DuPont, various local nurseries and garden supply stores that carry and sell Imprelis, and even authorities, are receiving hordes of complaints from the public that the herbicide is their killing trees en masse. And yet DuPont remains in denial that Imprelis is to blame, and has already come out claiming that customers might be at fault for improperly mixing or applying the chemical. And the EPA appears to be taking a similar approach, despite giving very unconvincing lip-service that it is taking the situation “very seriously.” “We’ve made 1,000 applications and had 350 complaints of dead trees, and it’s climbing,” lamented Matt Coats, services manager for Underwood Nursery in Adrian, Mich., to the NYT. “I’ve done nothing for the last three weeks but deal with angry customers. We’re seeing some tree doing OK, with just the tips getting brown, and others are completely dead and it looks like someone took a flamethrower to them.” Coats went on to say that while his nursery has liability insurance to replace the dead trees, each incident holds a $500 deductible. In other words, his company has already spent $150,000 out of pocket to pay for damages caused by Imprelis, and these costs are escalating. Many landscapers, however, have it far worse, as their insurance policies largely do not cover dead trees, many of which were mature and irreplaceable. The EPA deserves much of the blame for approving Imprelis in the first place The fact that DuPont markets Imprelis as having “low toxicity to mammals and low environmental impact” — all while the chemical cocktail is actually causing a real-life, utterly-devastating environmental impact as we speak — is despicable. And while it is easy to put all the blame on DuPont for selling a product that is mislabeled, at best, it is important not to forget that the EPA is actually responsible as well because the agency approved the herbicide in the first place. According to the NYT, the EPA spent 23 months investigating Imprelis prior to granting it approval. It is unclear what type of investigating the agency actually performed during this time, though, as one would think that a basic platform of product testing would include seeing how trees, plants, and other non-target shrubs respond to the herbicide — which it appears the agency did not do. The EPA either never performed any safety testing on Imprelis at all, in which case it has proven itself to be an utterly useless “protector” of the environment, or it performed tests and did not consider the findings to be of much concern. In either case, the EPA has demonstrated that it is unable to properly perform its job duties, and deserves to be stripped of all regulatory authority. Since pyralids, the class of herbicides to which Imprelis belongs, have been known to poison non-target plants as far back as 2008, the indictment of the EPA goes even deeper. Pyralids biodegrade so slowly that they can remain in soil for years and leech directly into groundwater supplies. And if the soil is ever composted, the herbicide can spread even further, causing extensive damage (http://www.motherearthnews.com/Organic-Gardening/2008-10-01/Aminopyralid-Garden-Threat.aspx). Such easily-accessed information must have come up during the EPA’s 23-month “investigation” of Imprelis, which suggests that the EPA was willfully complicit in approving a dangerous product that is mislabeled as being safe. And if this is the case, then the EPA must be immediately investigated and held liable for potential criminal activity. No synthetic chemical herbicide is truly safe, despite claims made by chemical companies What all of this really comes down to is the fact that no synthetic chemical formula is safe. No matter how creatively the chemical companies try to label their products as “safe” or “low impact,” such claims are patently false when the chemicals in question have been synthetically engineered to kill plants. The only effective and safe ways to deal with weeds is either to pull them out by hand, or learn to accept them and the many benefits they can actually provide, which include improving soil health and reducing the need for excess watering. There are also a variety of companies that produce truly-safe and natural lawn care products that will help with lawn management. To learn more, visit: http://www.safelawns.org Sources for this story include: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/science/earth/15herbicide.html

Disposable coffee cups, carryout containers filled with cancer-causing agents

(NaturalNews) Millions of people eat and drink from plastic and styrofoam cups and containers every single day, and the US government now admits that many of these consumer products contain known cancer-causing agents. The formaldehyde preservatives found in many disposable coffee cups and foam take-out containers, as well as styrene, another chemical additive used in such products, have both been added to the federal government’s list of known or suspected carcinogens. The addition of these two chemicals, as well as six others, to the carcinogen list this year was reportedly a reluctant decision made by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which has been pressured by the chemical industry for years to delay coming forward with this information. Nevertheless, both formaldehyde and a chemical known as aristolochic acid have now been categorized as “known human carcinogens,” while captafol, cobalt-tungsten carbide, certain glass wool fibers, o-nitrotoluene, riddelliine, and styrene have been dubbed “reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens.” “Reducing exposure to cancer-causing agents is something we all want, and the Report on Carcinogens provides important information on substances that pose a cancer risk,” said Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP). “The NTP is pleased to be able to compile this report.” You can read the full report, entitled 12th Report on Carcinogens , here: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc12 The chemical industry was quick to denounce the findings, of course, claiming that there is no significant danger from exposure to these chemicals. And some federal officials seem to be kowtowing to this pressure by telling the public that the main concern is the industrial use of these chemicals, rather than consumer use. Even the American Cancer Society (ACS) has urged the public not to worry about continuing to use plastic cups or foam containers, despite the fact that many are loaded with some of the chemicals in question. Sources for this story include: http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2011/06/12/2011-06-12_two_main_components_of_coffee_cups_and_carry_out_containers_identified_as_cancer.html?r=lifestyle/health http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robyn-griggs-lawrence/formaldehyde-carcinogen_b_876115.html

Psych drug doctors now pushing to add lithium to drinking water

(NaturalNews) Chlorine, fluoride, and the various other chemical poisons already added to the nation’s drinking water supplies are apparently not enough for the self-appointed experts whose insatiable lust to force-medicate the world is never satisfied. A recent report in The Daily offers credence to the insane notion that adding lithium, a drug currently used to treat mental disorders, to drinking water will be beneficial in helping to reduce suicide and violent crime rates. Much like fluoride, lithium alters the brain’s normal production of serotonin and norepinephrine, which in turn artificially alters the way an individual thinks and how he or she feels about a given situation. Lithium is literally a mind-altering, antidepressant chemical substance that those promoting it openly admit modifies brain function. And yet they purport that forcibly inducing these chemical changes on the unwitting populations of the world is a good and acceptable idea. “Lithium certainly dampens impulsivity, which would explain how it reduces suicide rates,” said Dr. Allan Young, a psychiatry professor at Imperial College London and big time promoter of lithium-laced water, to The Daily . “When you change these resilience factors in the brain, you see other changes too. People are less timid and shy, for example.” And in the same conversation with that reporter, Young humorously wonders with seemingly insidious arrogance why he has received slews of angry letters from the concerned public about his proposal to mass-medicate the world with this new type of drug. Could it be, Dr. Young, that people would rather think for themselves without having self-appointed “experts” like yourself superciliously play the role of God by deciding for others what they should and should not consume of their own free will? In his push to begin poisoning water supplies with lithium, Young also cites Americans having been easily swayed to accept genetically-modified (GM) foods as a reason why the US is a “likely candidate for early implementation” of lithium-laced water. He and others are openly pushing to get lithium in the water as soon as possible in order to, as The Daily puts it, “cultivate a more serene social order.” Sources for this story include: http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/05/22/052211-news-lithium-1-5/

Plastics chemical in packaged foods linked to asthma in babies

(NaturalNews) BPA, also known as bisphenol-A, is a chemical compound often used in the production of a large variety of plastics. The widespread use of BPA has come under public scrutiny due to known connection to a host of health problems, including heart complications, cancer, neurological issues, diabetes and fertility and sexual issues. http://www.naturalnews.com/027736_BPA_sexual_dysfunction.html The chemical can be found in water bottles, dental fillings, plastic containers, canned food linings http://www.naturalnews.com/025128_BPA_food_companies.html, paper receipts, CD/DVD packaging, and more. Numerous studies have found that BPA acts as an endocrine system disrupter, negatively affecting our bodies’ hormone production. Exposure is almost a certainty -a 2004 study by the CDC found BPA in 93% of the over 2000 urine samples tested. So, it shouldn’t surprise you that new information has surfaced linking BPA to breathing issues in babies. An article in Mail Online, discussed the results of a recent study by Penn State College of Medicine. The results found that pregnant mothers with high levels of BPA in their blood during the 16th week of pregnancy are “twice as likely to have infants with wheezing problems in the first six months of life.” What is really scary is that 99% of all the mothers in this study had various levels of bisphenol-A in their systems. There is no question that the use of bisphenol-A use in food and drinking containers should be banned. Even though no country has yet to go that far, Denmark http://www.wecf.eu/english/articles/2010/03/denmark-bisphenola.php was the first country in the EU to ban the chemical in containers that target children under 3; and the entire EU has banned it from use in the production of baby bottles. Northern America has been a bit slower on the uptake but Canada and some states in the United States have begun taking steps to control the use of bisphenol- A in consumer products. Six baby bottle manufacturers removed the chemical from their U.S. bottle production after widespread public outcry. Of course, the plastics industry prefers to spend money to procure studies http://acronymrequired.com/2008/10/fda-bpa-glp.html that cast doubt on the dangers of BPA, rather than implanting BPA safe alternatives. So again, consumers must take steps to protect themselves. Expectant mothers and women planning to conceive should be diligent in avoidance of bisphenol-A contaminated products- it is imperative for the well being of themselves and their infants. Resources: 1. http://www.naturalnews.com/031651_BPA_chemicals.html 2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1382525/Chemicals-food-packaging-linked-breathing-problems-babies.html?ito=feeds-newsxml 3. http://www.naturalnews.com/025804_BPA_Baby_Bottles.html

Study: Pesticides, toxins can absorb directly into crops through soil

(NaturalNews) A recent study put forth by Nanjing Agricultural University and funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China provides further insight into the delicate relationship between plants and the soil in which they are grown. An experiment involving ryegrass shed light on how environmental toxins, chemical pesticides, and other pollutants are fully capable of absorbing directly into plants and distributing throughout plant cells. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) is the general name given to a variety of contaminant byproducts that result from activities like burning coal and oil, and barbecuing and blackening meats. Scientists also intentionally manufacture and use these chemicals to make artificial dyes, plastics, pharmaceutical drugs, and pesticides. Tests involving acenaphthene, a specific type of PAH that is a constituent of coal tar, revealed that the chemical binds fairly easily to soil solids. Since PAHs do not easily break down in the presence of water, they also tend to settle in waterways. And when normal soil pathogens found on the roots of ryegrass become contaminated with acenaphthene, the end result is the direct uptake and spread of the chemical throughout the cellular system of the plant. So not only are PAHs an external threat that pollute air and water, but now they are known to be an internal threat that invade and permeate the very structure of plants. The implications of this are clearly devastating, as the very integrity of plants and food crops is compromised by continual exposure to these and other toxic chemicals. The ryegrass test was just one of many that Yanzheng Gao and his colleagues plan to conduct on pollutants, soil, and plants, but it highlights the important reality of how soil composition plays a crucial role in plant health. If ryegrass so easily absorbs chemical toxins found in soil, then it is safe to assume that conventional food crops doused in chemical pesticides are most likely doing the exact same thing — and millions of people are consuming food made from these crops every single day! According to reports, prenatal exposure to PAHs can result in low birth weight, premature delivery, heart malformations, low IQ and childhood asthma. Long-term exposure as an adult can cause lung damage, kidney dysfunction, liver problems, and skin disorders. Sources for this story include: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-03/asoa-hpa032911.php

Next Page »