Essential oils are used in aromatherapy and may provide numerous health benefits. These oils are starting to be explored by the scientific community for their effectiveness in treating cancer, HIV, asthma, bronchitis, heart disease and strokes. (1)
It appears that the FDA is not too happy about this healing potential. This past week, Young Living and doTERRA both received letters from the FDA claiming that their products are being marketed as unapproved drugs. The companies are being told that they have to remove all health claims and take corrective actions or they face serious legal consequences. Considering past FDA threats, these consequences would most likely look like armed federal marshals ransacking their warehouses and seizing all of their products. (2)
FDA sends letters to Young Living and doTerra claiming their products are being marketed as unapproved drugs
It is not the first time that the FDA has gone after companies that sell holistic products. The FDA has issued warning letters to producers of walnuts, cranberries, elderberry juice, and coconut oil. Both of these essential oil companies are network-based marketing companies, which provides a unique challenge for the companies as well as the FDA. The FDA reports that the independent distributors are “paid consultants,” therefore, the parent companies have control over how their products are being marketed by the consultants. (2)
Companies view consultants as non-employees, while FDA believes companies have complete control of “paid consultants”
The companies are viewing the situation a bit differently, stating that they have guidelines and restrictions on how their products can be marketed. Both companies claim that their guidelines comply with FDA requirements, and that they have no control over how non-employees distribute the products.(2)
These warnings do not appear to be slowing down doTERRA. Enthusiasts continue to state how these products help with everything from muscle pain to weight loss. Some advocates are stating that these oils save them from antibiotics and doctor visits.(3)
Social media is serving as a platform for enthusiasts to share their experiences, making statements about their lack of doctor and pharmacy visits.(3)
Google searches for “essential oils” have tripled in the last two years, and searches for doTERRA’s name have quadrupled. Last year’s convention had 18,000 people in attendance, and this year, the company is expecting 27,000 people to attend. The company has not released finance information, but does report that their earnings have been doubling each year. (3)
Google searches for “essential oils” have tripled in the last two years!
Time will tell how the FDA warning letters are dealt with by these companies. What lengths is the FDA willing to go to in order to shut down these companies, halt essential oils, or put fear into the public and distributors?
Food irradiation, also known as “cold pasteurization” or “irradiation pasteurization,” is a food sterilization technology that has been around for nearly a century. Food irradiation is done by exposing food to ionizing radiation, which according to the EPA, “kills bacteria and other pathogens, that could otherwise result in spoilage or food poisoning.”
How is Food Irradiated?
According to the EPA, the process of irradiating food involves exposing the food to radioactive materials by passing it through a radiation beam, and therefore the food does not come in direct contact with radioactive materials.
Bulk or packaged food passes through a radiation chamber on a conveyor belt. The food does not come into contact with radioactive materials, but instead passes through a radiation beam, like a large flashlight.
The type of food and the specific purpose of the irradiation determine the amount of radiation, or dose, necessary to process a particular product. The speed of the belt helps control the radiation dose delivered to the food by controlling the exposure time. The actual dose is measured by dosimeters within the food containers.
Cobalt-60 is the most commonly used radionuclide for food irradiation. However, there are also large cesium-137 irradiators and the Army has also used spent fuel rods for irradiation.
Does irradiated food sound like something you would want to eat? Even though the food does not come in direct contact with radioactive materials, it does not mean that the food is not contaminated with harmful levels of radiation.
Pros and Cons and Health Effects of Food Irradiation
The good things about using ionizing radiation to sterilize food are that it may increase the shelf life of the food, and can destroy most harmful microorganisms and insects. The bad things are that it can change the natural structures of the food and destroy many of its nutrients, making it unhealthy and even harmful to eat. As a result, your health will suffer which often leads to a lack of energy and even chronic fatigue.
Irradiated foods are exposed to high level radiation for the purpose of sterilizing it. There is an abundance of convincing evidence in the refereed scientific literature that the condensation products of the free radicals formed during irradiation produce statistically significant increases in carcinogenesis, mutagenesis and cardiovascular disease in animals and man. This is in addition to the destruction of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients.
Food irradiation is not as effective as they claim, because it does not guarantee that all microorganisms and insects are eliminated from the food. Many supporters of food irradiation claim that it is needed to prevent world hunger. This is nothing more than a big fat lie.
One of the main reasons why there is a lack of food in certain parts of the world is because of corporate farming. Corporate farming’s bad agricultural practices have destroyed many farmland due to their heavy use of toxic agrochemicals. Companies that support corporate farming do not really care about the environment. What they care about is profit.
Why You Should Not Always Rely on the FDA for Food Safety
Many people think that because the FDA has approved the use of food irradiation, food that has been irradiated should be safe enough to eat. This is not always true. The FDA is highly influenced by food companies and their lobbyists. They are the reason why the FDA is still in business.
I suggest avoiding irradiated food as much as possible because ionizing radiation can negatively affect the natural chemical structures of the food and its nutrients. If the radiation is strong enough to kill bacteria and insects, it is strong enough to cause permanent damage to the organic structures of the food.
How to Avoid Irradiated Food
Do not purchase food products with the Radura symbol on it.
If the food product has the content “treated with radiation” or “treated by irradiation,” do not buy or consume it.
Look for misleading labels, such as “electronically pasteurized,” “cold pasteurization,” and “irradiation pasteurization” on food products. Food products that have these labels are often treated with radiation, so avoid eating them.
Buy organic food at stores that specialize in whole food.
Buy fruits and vegetables at your local farmer’s market.
According to NaturalNews.com, the FDA’s regulations on food irradiation are not very strict. “For example, if you buy coleslaw, and the cabbage in the coleslaw has been irradiated, there is no requirement that the coleslaw carry any labeling indicating it has been irradiated.” This means that most American consumers are already eating irradiated food without even knowing it.
Pao L. Chang is the author and founder of EnergyFanatics.com and OmniThought.org, two comprehensive blogs dedicated to exploring topics about energy, health, conscious living, spiritual science, and exotic “free energy” technology. He loves to explore the mystery of alternative medicine, the science of consciousness, quantum mechanics, sacred geometry, and how energy affects the physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual body.
Genetically-modified food is one of the most controversial subjects today. Not only are regulations loose and manufacturers getting away with not labeling them, they’re being approved at an alarmingly swift rate without the appropriate long-term health assessment. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved of two GMO foods, potatoes and apples, as safe and equally nutritious as conventional varieties, and they’re pushing to get these items to a grocery store near you.
The Approval of GMO Foods Apples and Potatoes
The new approval is covering six varieties of potatoes and two varieties of apples. [1] The potatoes come from Idaho from the J. R. Simplot Co., and the apples come from Canadian company Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc. Fortunately for the health food movement, McDonald’s, a long-time client of J. R. Simplot Co., is no longer purchasing from the company, opting out of using GMO potatoes for its food.
ConAgra is another big-name company that supplies potatoes for restaurants all across the world, and it is also in line with consumer demand for non-GMO potato varieties. While french fries and hash browns are certainly not health fare, it does go to show how companies listen and respond to the desires of consumers. In order to keep up the fight against GMOs and keep them out of our food supply, we need to continue advocating for labeling laws that will help us, as consumers, differentiate between natural food and Frankenfood.
What You Can Do
Along with contacting the FDA and urging them to look into labeling laws, there are a few things you can do to get the ball moving. Buying organic as much as possible shows companies that consumers are demanding more natural, non-GMO foods. Consumer research into buying trends weigh heavily on the actions of companies in producing their products, so vote with your pocketbook by buying as many of your products as natural as possible.
-Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM
FDA Sets Hearing to Regulate Homeopathic Medicine- ACT NOW to save access to homeopathic remedies
Wednesday, April 08, 2015 by: Talya Dagan
(NaturalNews) The FDA has called a hearing to decide the future of access to homeopathic medicine. Urgent comments are needed to protect health freedom. The FDA is reevaluating their “regulatory framework” for homoeopathic remedies. Friends and supporters of homeopathy have to act immediately to tell the FDA that they want to maintain their freedom to use homeopathic medicines.
The hearing will be on April 20 and April 21, 2015. You can send materials to the FDA to support homeopathic freedom. Materials must be received by the FDA by June 22, 2015. Comment online at: http://www.regulations.gov or by mail to Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Be sure to include the docket number HFA-305 in any correspondence to the FDA. The hearing will be broadcast live at https://collaboration.fda.gov/hprapril2015/.
How to help
The FDA wants to hear from patients and consumers, as well as from health care providers and those selling or manufacturing homeopathic medicines. You can apply to speak in person or listen to the live meeting. You will be able to listen to the live broadcast of the meeting and comment afterwards. The comment period is open until June 22, 2015. (See addresses below.)
Current FDA regulations of homeopathic medicines
Many homeopathic medicines are sold over-the counter. The FDA has now decided to reevaluate their “regulatory framework.” After sending out a safety alert concerning a homeopathic remedy for asthma in March 2015, the FDA then sent out a notice of public hearing. The hearing has been set in order to: “…obtain information and comments from stakeholders about the current use of human drug and biological products labeled as homeopathic, as well as the Agency’s regulatory framework for such products.”
Current homeopathic regulation of homeopathic medicine by the FDA
The FDA currently recognizes the homeopathic Pharmacopeia along with other drugs labeled USP. A NGO called Homeopathic Pharmacopeia Convention of the United States (HPCUS) has been regulating and monitoring the 1200 included (monographed) homeopathic remedies since 1897. In 1972, the FDA decided to “defer” review of homeopathic medicines based on their “uniqueness.” Because of this, there are no FDA safety reviews required for the sale or manufacturing of homeopathic medicines. In 1988, any “drug products” labeled as homeopathic have been able to be sold and manufactured without FDA approval, based on their Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) published that year. Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) 400.400 entitled “Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May be Marketed” (see 53 FR 21728, June 9, 1988).
Notice of the FDA hearing on regulating homeopathic medicine (HFA-305)
www.federalregister.gov
How to send comments to the FDA about regulation of homeopathic medicine
Mail:
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852
Online:
http://www.regulations.gov
Include docket number HFA-305 in all correspondence.
Food safety advocates sue FDA over withholding of information about ractopamine growth drug used in meat industry
Posted: November 1, 2013
(http://www.alternet.org)Most Americans have probably never heard of ractopamine, so you may be surprised to learn that it is used in 80 percent of US pig and cattle farming operations. Ractopamine is a growth additive drug, known as a beta-agonist, that is widely banned in other countries, but in the US, it is marketed as Paylean for pigs, Optaflexx for cattle and Topmax for turkeys.
The effects that ractopamine has on animals is already known, but its effects on humans are still a mystery. A European study in which one participant dropped out due to adverse effects found that ” ractopamine causes elevated heart rates and heart-pounding sensations in humans,” the Center for Food Safety (CFS) said. Other studies have shown that the drug causes rapid heart beat, birth defects and enlarged hearts in animals. Countryside magazine has reported cases of pigs being too weak to walk and their hooves falling off after being given ractopamine.
Being understandably concerned with these disturbing reports, the CFS and the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) have requested information “documenting, analyzing, or otherwise discussing the physiological, psychological, and/or behavioral effects” of ractopamine from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA has around 100,000 pages on the drug, but they have refused to produce more than 464 pages that have already been previously released. Distraught over the administration’s illegal withholding and concealment of vital public health and safety information, the CFS and ALDF have decided to sue the FDA over the matter.
Ractopamine is banned in the EU, Russia, China, Taiwan and many other countries that actually care about their citizens’ health. This drug’s continued use closes American meat producers out of those foreign markets and likely puts consumers in danger. Hopefully, the CFS and ALDF will succeed in their fight, and the American justice system will force the FDA to release information about ractopamine, protect consumers and actually do its job instead of idly and flagrantly wasting our tax dollars and our time.
If you think the U.S. government is doing a sub-par job of keeping your food safe, brace yourself. You could soon be eating imported seafood, beef or chicken products that don’t meet even basic U.S. food safety standards. Under two new trade agreements, currently in negotiation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could be powerless to shut down imports of unsafe food or food ingredients. And if it tries, multinational corporations will be able to sue the U.S. government for the loss of anticipated future profits.
More frightening? Negotiations for both agreements are taking place behind closed doors, with input allowed almost exclusively from the corporations and industry trade groups that stand to benefit the most. And the Obama Administration intends to push the agreements through Congress without so much as giving lawmakers access to draft texts, much less the opportunity for debate.
Designed to grease the wheels of world commerce, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would force the U.S. and other participating countries to “harmonize” food safety standards. That means all countries that sign on to the agreement would be required to abide by the lowest common denominator standards of all participating governments. So for instance, say Vietnam allows higher residues of veterinary antibiotics in seafood than the U.S. allows, and Vietnam and the U.S. both sign on to the TPP. As a trade partner, the U.S. could be forced to lower its standards to allow for imports of seafood from Vietnam – or face a lawsuit by the seafood exporter for depriving the company of future sales of its products in the U.S.
The U.S. has already had a taste of this type of policy under the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA). In 2005, the Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade sued the U.S. the U.S. government for banning imports of beef and live Canadian cattle after a case of mad cow disease was discovered in Canada. In the end, the U.S. prevailed, but not until it had spent millions to defend itself in court. Mexico wasn’t so fortunate when three companies (Corn Products International, ADM/Tate & Lyle and Cargill) sued the Mexican government for preventing imports of high fructose corn syrup. Mexico lost all three cases, and was forced to pay out a total of $169.18 million to the three firms.
Among the many gifts to Big Ag contained in the TTIP and TPP? Back-door entry for their genetically modified seeds and crops. Countries, including those in the European Union, could find it increasingly difficult to ban, or even require the labeling of, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), if biotech companies determine that those countries’ strict policies restrict fair trade and infringe on the companies’ “rights” to profit.
The TTIP and the TPP are, individually and combined, two of the largest free trade agreements in world history. According to the Citizens Trade Campaign (CTC) the TPP alone covers 40 percent of the global economy. That percentage will likely grow, because the agreement allows for other countries, besides the 12 currently involved, to “dock on” after the agreement is in place.
Both the TTIP and TPP could have dangerous consequences for food safety in the U.S., and around the world. But they’re not limited to food or agriculture policy. Both also contain sweeping policies that could affect everything from the environment and sustainability, to healthcare, Internet freedom and the financial markets. Given the potential of these agreements to shape global policy on so many fronts, it’s reasonable to assume that negotiators would actively solicit, and take into careful consideration, input from the affected parties, including consumers, farmers and governments. Instead they’ve taken the opposite approach. From day one, negotiations for the TTIP and TPP have been shrouded in secrecy. The public and participating governments, including the U.S. Congress, have been shut out of the negotiating process, denied access to everything from early proposals to final draft texts.
Why the secrecy? The Obama Administration wants as little public debate as possible, so it can ram the agreements through Congress using something called “Fast Track.” Fast Track, a product of the Nixon presidency, strips Congress of its authority to control the content of a trade deal and hands that authority over to the executive branch. Congress gets a vote, but only after the negotiations have been completed, and the agreements have been signed. No debate. No amendments. Just a fast, forced vote, too late for Congress to have any influence.
According to the CTC, two-thirds of Democratic freshmen in the U.S. House of Representatives have expressed serious reservations about the TPP negotiations and the prospect of giving Fast Track authority to the President. And more than 400 organizations representing 15 million Americans have already petitioned Congress to do away with Fast Track in favor of a more democratic approach to trade agreement negotiations. So far those pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
If the public is shut out, and Congress gets no say, who gets a seat at the table? Corporations. That’s right. The Obama Administration is trusting corporations like Dow AgroSciences, Cargill and DuPont, and trade groups like the Pork Producers Council and Tobacco Associates, Inc., to write food safety policies. In all, more than 600 corporations have been given access to drafts of various chapters of the TPP. Requests for the same level of access, from members of Congress and from the public, have been denied.
No wonder then that, according to leaked drafts obtained by groups like the CTC, Public Citizen and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), the TPP contains proposals designed to give transnational corporations “special rights” that go far beyond those possessed by domestic businesses and American citizens, says Arthur Stamoulis, executive director of the CTC. Experts who have reviewed the leaked texts say that TPP negotiators propose allowing transnational corporations to challenge countries’ laws, regulations and court decisions, including environmental and food safety laws. Corporations will be allowed to resolve trade disputes in special international tribunals. In other words, they get to do an end run around the countries’ domestic judicial systems, effectively wiping out hundreds, if not more, domestic and international food sovereignty laws.
U.S. consumers aren’t the only ones who should be up in arms about these trade agreements, the secrecy around their negotiations, and the Obama Administration’s intent to fast-track them. Under the TTIP and TPP, consumers in countries that have stricter food safety regulations than those in the U.S. will see their standards lowered, too. For instance, Japan prohibits the use of peracetic acid to sterilize vegetables, fruits and meat, while the U.S., Canada and Australia allow it. Japan’s health ministry, in anticipation of the TPP, has said the country will add the acid to its approved list. In all, Japan has approved only about 800 food additives, to the more than 3,000 approved in the U.S. Japan’s consumers could soon see a sudden reversal of laws enacted to protect their health.
European consumers will also suffer. Europe has long used the precautionary principle to ban ractopamine in meat, chlorine rinses of poultry and the use of rBGH growth hormone in milk production. Under the TTIP, Europe could be forced to allow all three in order to meet the lowest common denominator rule. The precautionary principle removes the burden of proof from policymakers, allowing them to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm, given the lack of scientific proof to the contrary. But that principle flies out the window under TTIP rules.
The Organic Consumers Association is urging consumers to petition President Obama and Interim U.S. Trade Representative Miriam Sapiro to release the draft texts of the TTIP and TPP, and encourage full and open debate on the policies contained in both agreements. The petition also asks President Obama to end the Fast Track option, and grant Congress the ability to debate and amend the agreements, before voting on them.
With the world’s food supply, and consumers’ health, already endangered by chemical-intensive industrial agriculture and climate change, the U.S. and other governments should be looking for ways to promote sustainable food and agriculture policies, not restrict governments’ abilities to do so. Instead, the Obama Administration is subverting the principles of democracy in favor of handing a few transnational corporations unprecedented power to put profits above the health and well being of consumers.
Katherine Paul is Director of Communications and Development for the Organic Consumers Association. Ronnie Cummins is National Director of the Organic Consumers Association.
A new vaccine for influenza has hit the market, and it is the first ever to contain genetically-modified (GM) proteins derived from insect cells. According to reports, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the vaccine, known as Flublok, which contains recombinant DNA technology and an insect virus known as baculovirus that is purported to help facilitate the more rapid production of vaccines.
According to Flublok’s package insert, the vaccine is trivalent, which means it contains GM proteins from three different flu strains. The vaccine’s manufacturer, Protein Sciences Corporation (PSC), explains that Flublok is produced by extracting cells from the fall armyworm, a type of caterpillar, and genetically altering them to produce large amounts of hemagglutinin, a flu virus protein that enables the flu virus itself to enter the body quickly.
So rather than have to produce vaccines the “traditional” way using egg cultures, vaccine manufacturers will now have the ability to rapidly produce large batches of flu virus protein using GMOs, which is sure to increase profits for the vaccine industry. But it is also sure to lead to all sorts of serious side effects, including the deadly nerve disease Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GSB), which is listed on the shot as a potential side effect.
“If Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) has occurred within six weeks of receipt of a prior influenza vaccine, the decision to give Flublock should be based on careful consideration of the potential benefits and risks,” explains a section of the vaccine’s literature entitled “Warnings and Precautions.” Other potential side effects include allergic reactions, respiratory infections, headaches, fatigue, altered immunocompetence, rhinorrhea, and myalgia.
According to clinical data provided by PSC in Flublok’s package insert, two study participants actually died during trials of the vaccine. But the company still insists Flublok is safe and effective, and that it is about 45 percent effective against all strains of influenza in circulation, rather than just one or two strains.
FDA also approves flu vaccine containing dog kidney cells
Back in November, the FDA also approved a new flu vaccine known as Flucelvax that is actually made using dog kidney cells. A product of pharmaceutical giant Novartis, Flucelvax also does away with the egg cultures, and can similarly be produced much more rapidly than traditional flu vaccines, which means vaccine companies can have it ready and waiting should the federal government declare a pandemic.
Like Flublok, Flucelvax was made possible because of a $1 billion, taxpayer-funded grant given by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the vaccine industry back in 2006 to develop new manufacturing methods for vaccines. The ultimate goal is to be able to quickly manufacture hundreds of millions of vaccines for rapid distribution.
Meanwhile, there are reportedly two other GMO flu vaccines currently under development. One of them, which is being produced by Novavax, will utilize “bits of genetic material grown in caterpillar cells called ‘virus-like particles’ that mimic a flu virus,” according to Reuters.
They may just be the hardest drugs on the market, if the FDA are to be believed.
A company which sells walnuts has been told they are dealing in drugs because their packaging suggests health benefits which the Food and Drug Administration has not approved, it has been reported.
A fiercely-worded letter from the agency allegedly insisted Diamond Foods, from Stockton, California, remove the health claims or send off for a new drug application if it did not wish to be closed down.
The nut company has been selling its products with packaging which states the omega-3 fatty acids in walnuts have been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease and some types of cancer.
Essential oils are used in aromatherapy and may provide numerous health benefits. These oils are starting to be explored by the scientific community for their effectiveness in treating cancer, HIV, asthma, bronchitis, heart disease and strokes. (1)
