WI judge declares that individuals have no fundamental right to own cows, drink raw milk

(NaturalNews) After being petitioned for clarification about his decision in a recent legal case involving individuals freedom to consume raw milk and own “shares” of dairy cows, Judge Patrick J. Fiedler vehemently declared that individuals “do not have a fundamental right to consume the foods of their choice,” and essentially reiterated his state’s position that raw milk is simply off limits. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), on behalf of Zinniker Family Farm in Elkhorn, Wi., and several other farms, filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) back on Feb. 25, 2010, asking it to clarify its interpretation of the law in regards to raw milk (http://www.ftcldf.org/litigation-wi_zinniker.htm). Wisconsin is among the most restrictive US states as far as raw milk is concerned. Raw milk sales to consumers are prohibited — but private cow share agreements in which individuals purchase “shares” of their own cows, are exempted. However, due to the onslaught of raids in recent years against raw dairies, private raw milk buying clubs, and even raw milk cow share programs, the plaintiffs simply wanted to clarify Wisconsin’s stance concerning these alternate forms of accessing raw milk. And they got their answer. According to a recent report by The Complete Patient , Judge Fiedler believes that no individual has a “fundamental right” to consume any food without government permission. Even though the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution establishes that the government has no business interfering in the affairs of individuals outside of what has been specifically enumerated to it, which, of course, includes freedom of food choice, Judge Fiedler apparently believes otherwise. To summarize Judge Fiedler’s response, which was obviously written in an arrogant and condescending tone, individuals have no fundamental right to own or use dairy cows, to consume the milk from their own cows, to board their cows off their own property, or even to produce and consume the foods of their own choice, period. You can read Judge Fiedler’s entire disturbing response here: http://www.thecompletepatient.com/storage/WIorder-clarification9-11.pdf Groups like FTCLDF will continue to challenge such illegal and unconstitutional restrictions against raw milk, particularly in individual states like Wisconsin where officials have illegally prohibited it. But individuals that value this priceless freedom must also also stand up and resist Big Brother’s concerted assault against food freedom, no matter form it may take. Sources for this story include: http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2011/9/15/wi-judge-to-zinniker-ftcldf-no-fundamental-right-to-own-a-co.html

PCBs found in 10 fish oil supplements

(NaturalNews) A California lawsuit is accusing several fish oil supplement manufacturers of selling fish oils that contain unsafe levels of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds, also known as PCBs. The state’s Proposition 65 requires products that may contain toxic ingredients above safe levels to have warning labels for consumer safety. Five supplement companies, CVS and Rite Aid drug stores, and Omega Protein, Inc., the world’s largest producer of omega-3 fish oil, are all named in the suit, which the plaintiffs hope will bring light to fish oil contamination problems. They also hope to see more accurate labeling of fish oils that includes specifics about contaminants like PCBs; that way, consumers will be able to make better decisions about which kinds are safe to buy. The PCB chemical family consists of 209 different chemical compounds, all of which were tested for in the lawsuit by a California lab. That same lab also tested each of the product samples for 12 of the most toxic PCB compounds. It then evaluated each sample in terms of daily exposure to PCBs overall, and daily exposure to PCBs in terms of toxicity. The brands tested included Nature Made, Twinlab, Now Foods, Solgar and GNC. Each brand included various types of fish oil, including cod liver, shark liver and salmon. Those that tested the lowest for PCBs contained one-70th the amount of those with the highest levels, indicating a significant difference in contamination among various brands, and types, of fish oil. According to David Roe, the man who filed the lawsuit in San Francisco’s Superior Court, the oils that tested highest exceed California’s daily limit for PCBs by a factor of ten in terms of cancer risk. On the same token, some of the oils tested very low, and are not of particular concern to consumers. Both Nature Made and Twinlab issued immediate responses to the lawsuit in defense of their respective brands’ safety. Erin Hlasney from the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), a supplement industry trade group, also came to the defense of fish oils in general, explaining that they have been used safely for decades. But the plaintiffs contend that it is not enough to simply say that a product meets guidelines; consumers have a right to know how a product actually tests for contaminants once it arrives on store shelves. Many brands claim that their fish oils have been purified and treated to reduce or remove contaminants, but few actually explain to what extent these toxins have been removed. For complete details about the case and to view the fish oil test results, please visit www.fishoilsafety.com. Sources for this story include: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14501591?source=most_viewed http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/ConsumerNews/truth-fish-oil-concerns/story?id=9994049

AstraZeneca Denied Drug’s Link to Diabetes for Years After Admitting Link to Japanese Physicians

(NaturalNews) Drug giant AstraZeneca attempted to obscure the connection between one of its blockbuster drugs and diabetes risk for years after it knew of the problem, according to documents recently unsealed as part of lawsuits against the company. More than 15,000 patients have sought damages from the company, alleging that they were harmed by side effects from its atypical antipsychotic Seroquel. According to the plaintiffs, AstraZeneca deliberately hid information linking the drug to an increased risk of weight gain and diabetes. The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single case for the purpose of pre-trial proceedings. The recently unsealed documents include notes from a meeting between salesperson Nancy White and a doctor in July 2006, during which the doctor said that his patients were expressing concern about Seroquel’s links to diabetes. White reported telling the doctor that “there has been no causative effect” proven between the drug and the disease. Yet in November 2002, AstraZeneca had issued a warning to doctors in Japan that due to dozens of reports linking Seroquel to diabetes, “causality with the drug could not be ruled out.” The company cautioned doctors not to prescribe the drugs to diabetics and to encourage all Seroquel patients to monitor their blood sugar. Just over a year later, the company issued a similar warning to doctors in the United States. “It’s pretty clear that if a drug poses a diabetes risk in one country, it poses that risk in others,” said psychiatrist Dan Carlat of Tufts University. “I don’t think it’s ethical to warn doctors in Japan about this drug and then downplay or ignore the risk in the U.S.” Other documents reveal that the company trained its salespeople to dodge questions about the connection between Seroquel and weight gain. Seroquel remains AstraZeneca’s second-best selling drug, pulling in $4.45 billion in 2008. Sources for this story include: www.bloomberg.com.