Food Irradiation

Most people naturally understand that food and radiation should never meet. But irradiated food is already on our supermarket shelves and may even be in your refrigerator. Most consumers are probably unaware that a growing portion of their food supply is at risk of exposure to potentially harmful sources of radiation, or that irradiated meat has been approved for the National School Lunch Program.

Food irradiation uses high-energy gamma rays, electron beams, or X-rays to break apart bacteria and insects that can hide in meat, grains, and other foods. Instead of addressing the unsanitary conditions of factory farms that cause many food-borne illnesses, the food industry sees this technology as a quick fix for the negative consequences of industrial livestock production. Moreover, the influence of the food industry on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has led to the legalization of several irradiated food items, including spices, produce, and meats.

Corporate food processors are eager to expand the use of food irradiation on a wide variety of ready-to-eat foods such as deli meats, hot dogs, snacks, packaged salads and baby food, claiming that the process kills organisms that cause spoilage and human disease. In fact, corporations see the use of irradiation as a means to increase their market shares in the international import and export trade and ultimately boost their profits. Despite the findings of well-respected international scientists that show irradiated foods may cause health impacts in people who eat them, key regulatory agencies and some members of Congress support the widespread use of irradiation.

New scientific evidence of the potentially harmful human health impacts of food irradiation has begun to emerge just as the food industry is pressing the government to expand its use. Internationally recognized scientists have presented a growing body of evidence indicating that foods created using this technology may not be safe to eat. Irradiating some types of foods, including ground beef products, can create potentially dangerous chemical byproducts and reduce the foods' nutritional value.

A thorough, independent scientific test commissioned by CFS revealed the presence of the chemicals known as 2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-ACBs) in three types of irradiated ground beef. Earlier research had discovered the cancer-promoting characteristic of 2-ACBs in the colons of rats. The ground beef testing was the first to demonstrate the presence of these risky chemicals in U.S. consumer products. Furthermore, one-third of earlier published studies that examined mutagenicity link the byproducts of irradiation to DNA damage.
Despite these troubling findings, Congress and the USDA are allowing school systems under the National School Lunch Program to serve irradiated food to a potential population of 27 million kids. This effectively makes school children human guinea pigs in the next round of food irradiation tests.

CFS seeks to force government agencies to take a precautionary approach to the untested process of irradiating the nation's food supply. CFS urges FDA to deny the industry's request to irradiate ready-to-eat foods (like packaged lunch meat, hotdogs and TV dinners) and to revoke its earlier approval of irradiated meat and other products. CFS is also working to reverse the government's decision to feed irradiated foods to schoolchildren through the National School Lunch Program.

testing...

Sewage Sludge - Too Insanely Disgusting To Be True?

Every time you flush your toilet or clean a paintbrush in your sink, you may be unwittingly contributing fertilizer used to grow the food in your pantry.

Beginning in the early 1990's, millions of tons of potentially-toxic sewage sludge have been applied to millions of acres of America's farmland as food crop fertilizer. Selling sewage sludge to farmers for use on cropland has been a favored government program for disposing of the unwanted byproducts from municipal wastewater treatment plants. But sewage sludge is anything but the benign fertilizer the Environmental Protection Agency says it is.

Sewage sludge includes anything that is flushed, poured, or dumped into our nation's wastewater system -- a vast, toxic mix of wastes collected from countless sources, from homes to chemical industries to hospitals. The sludge being spread on our crop fields is a dangerous stew of heavy metals, industrial compounds, viruses, bacteria, drug residues, and radioactive material. In fact, hundreds of people have fallen ill after being exposed to sewage sludge fertilizer -- suffering such symptoms as respiratory distress, headaches, nausea, rashes, reproductive complications, cysts, and tumors.

The compounds added and formed during the sewage treatment process create an unknown and unpredictable product, one that should fall under the category of hazardous waste. Monitoring and regulating the content of these dangerous combinations has fallen terrifyingly short of protecting public health and the environment. Currently, no records are kept on the date or location of these lethal land applications, allowing these toxins to enter the soil of our nation's cropland untraced.

Despite the apparent danger of using sludge in food production, federal regulations are woefully lax. The EPA monitors only nine of the thousands of pathogens commonly found in sludge; the agency rarely performs site inspections of sewage treatment plants; and it almost never inspects the farms that use sludge fertilizer. Regulations governing the use and disposal of sewage sludge have been criticized by both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Research Council, as well as numerous medical professionals, engineers, and activists.

The Center for Food Safety seeks to end the use of sewage sludge as an agricultural fertilizer -- first through an immediate moratorium on its application to croplands. CFS strongly suggests that the government launch an independent investigation into all specific claims that sludge has caused harm to people, animals, and the environment.

Genetically Engineered Food

The genetic engineering of plants and animals is looming as one of the greatest and most intractable environmental challenges of the 21st Century. Already, this novel technology has invaded our grocery stores and our kitchen pantries by fundamentally altering some of our most important staple food crops.

By being able to take the genetic material from one organism and insert it into the permanent genetic code of another, biotechnologists have engineered numerous novel creations, such as potatoes with bacteria genes, "super" pigs with human growth genes, fish with cattle growth genes, tomatoes with flounder genes, and thousands of other plants, animals and insects. At an alarming rate, these creations are now being patented and released into the environment.

Currently, up to 45 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as is 85 percent of soybeans. It has been estimated that 70-75 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves--from soda to soup, crackers to condiments--contain genetically engineered ingredients.

A number of studies over the past decade have revealed that genetically engineered foods can pose serious risks to humans, domesticated animals, wildlife and the environment. Human health effects can include higher risks of toxicity, allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression and cancer. As for environmental impacts, the use of genetic engineering in agriculture
could lead to uncontrolled biological pollution, threatening numerous microbial, plant and animal species with extinction, and the potential contamination of non-genetically engineered life forms with novel and possibly hazardous genetic material.

Despite these long-term and wide-ranging risks, Congress has yet to pass a single law intended to manage them responsibly. This despite the fact that our regulatory agencies have failed to adequately address the human health or environmental impacts of genetic engineering. On the federal level, eight agencies attempt to regulate biotechnology using 12 different statutes or laws that were written long before genetically engineered food, animals and insects became a reality. The result has been a regulatory tangle, where any regulation even exists, as existing laws are grossly manipulated to manage threats they were never intended to regulate. Among many bizarre examples of these regulatory anomalies is the current attempt by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate genetically engineered fish as "new animal drugs."

The haphazard and negligent agency regulation of biotechnology has had serious consequences for consumers and the environment. Unsuspecting consumers by the tens of millions are being allowed to purchase and consume unlabeled genetically engineered foods, despite a finding by FDA scientists that these foods could pose serious risks. And new genetically engineered crops are being approved by federal agencies despite admissions that they will contaminate native and conventional plants and pose other significant new environmental threats. In short, there has been a complete abdication of any responsible legislative or regulatory oversight of genetically engineered foods. Clearly, now is a critical time to challenge the government's negligence in managing the human health and environmental threats from biotechnology.

The Center for Food Safety seeks to prevent the approval, commercialization or release of any new genetically engineered crops until they have been thoroughly tested and found safe for human health and the environment. CFS maintains that any foods that already contain genetically engineered ingredients must be clearly labeled.

Tell FDA to Rescind its Approval for Irradiated Ground Beef

The FDA has overlooked substantial evidence that irradiated food may not be safe for human consumption. The Center for Food Safety has informed the FDA that more than one-third of the studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that looked at the question of genetic damage caused by consuming irradiated food actually showed genetic damage in animals, humans or cell cultures. Tell me more

While I personally don't usually sign or endorse petitions, I will pass this one on.

Subject: Citizen Petition No. 4Z4752 on irradiated
Dear Commissioner,

I am writing in support of Citizen Petition No. 4Z4752 to revoke the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of irradiation to treat ground beef. I urge the agency to rescind its approval of irradiation for ground beef for the following reasons:

The 1997 FDA approval for irradiation of ground beef was flawed since the agency based its decision on deficient scientific studies.

The FDA failed to test for the toxicity of unique chemicals formed when ground beef is irradiated.

While the FDA knew of the existence of these chemicals as early as 1972, the agency failed to test for their potential to cause harm to humans.

Recent research from Germany and France indicates that some of these chemicals are harmful to laboratory animals.

In addition, the research indicates that there are questions about how these chemicals are metabolized in the body -- an issue that deserves continued research.

The consumer groups Public Citizen and Center for Food Safety have demonstrated the existence of these potentially harmful chemicals in irradiated ground beef that is currently being sold in the United States.

The FDA failed to apply its own protocols when evaluating the safety of the chemicals produced when foods are irradiated.

The FDA approval has led to irradiated ground beef being marketed in some 5000 supermarkets across the country. While that meat is required to be labeled so that consumers can make an informed choice, it is disturbing to me that some chain restaurants are offering irradiated ground beef to unwitting customers since information about food prepared with irradiated ingredients does not have to be divulged.

The FDA approval has also led the United States Department of Agriculture to remove its prohibition on purchasing irradiated ground beef for the National School Lunch Program -- thus setting up the potential for our school children to become the largest group of consumers of irradiated ground beef without having complete scientific assurances of its safety.

For all of these reasons, I strongly urge you to rescind your approval of irradiation for ground beef.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]

Beef...It's What's For Dinner? Are you sure?

In trying to reduce our exposure to the e.coli bacteria (sweet folks they are) the FDA brainstorms the use of gamma rays which result in 'unknown' molecular matter, mold and carcinogens! Wanna Bite?

This is an older article, but it's still new to me. I no longer doubt the government can do absolutely anything 'they' want to do to us with very few taking notice. Everything in red ink is me, the rest is the article.
- Alisa

FDA APPROVES IRRADIATING BEEF Associated Press Release, December 3, 1997 (Ed Note: Underlines mine)

RADIATION FOLKS.... GAMMA WAVES

"The meat industry won approval Tuesday to zap beef with gamma rays to kill E. Coli and other harmful bacteria. FDA declared that the process does not make the meat radioactive and doesn't trigger other changes affecting the taste, wholesomeness or nutritional content. We think it is safe and we think it is appropriate said Dr. Michael Friedman, the acting FDA commissioner. The radiation dosage levels set by FDA are millions of times the amount in a typical chest X-ray, but "that isn't a valid comparison", said Pat Hansen, an FDA chemist who coordinated the review."

Good Grief! The "think tank" boys in the meat industry have even proposed using the term "cold pasteurization" in place of "irradiation".

Way back in September 1995 (Volume 1 Issue #6) we printed an article on food radiation. I've never done this before, but I feel much of the information in that article must be repeated at this time. It's just too important to count on all our readers to have this back issue.

FDA policy has allowed most irradiated food to be sold to the public since 1963 without so much as a disclosure label. Surely it must be "safe" beyond any doubt or somebody would be screaming bloody murder by now. Yet the media is very, very silent about the whole subject.

Sorry folks, but it just isn't so.

If you want the full horror story about this process, I would suggest you read "The Food That Would Last Forever" by Dr. Gary Gibbs--an authority on food radiation.

It turns out that when you hit food with these enormous doses of gamma rays (usually from cobalt-80) you create molecules called "radiotoxines". The FDA calls them "radiolytic by-products" and classifies them into two categories: Known and Unknown.

The ‘known’ category includes such neat things as formaldehyde and benzene (yes, they are both considered carcinogens).

The ‘unknown’ category is described as "unique radiolytic products" which are chemical molecules that have never been characterized and are not found anywhere in nature. (Hello immune system--here’s something new you can play with!!).

Does it harm beneficial Nutrients? Of course. About 30% of Vitamin C is destroyed. Milk is known to lose 70% of Vitamin A, B1 and B2 when radiated. Vitamins E, K, the entire B group, amino acids and essential fatty acids, are all known to be adversely affected.

Worse yet, it accelerates the growth of a particularly nasty mold called "aspergillus". This mold produces the most potent natural carcinogens, called "aflatoxins". One study, conducted by FDA itself in 1979, demonstrated that food radiation increases aflatoxin production by more than one-hundred-fold.

So what happens when this stuff is eaten?

Animal studies are clear. When up to 35% of the lab-animal diet was radiated, feeding studies had to be abandoned because the animals died or were unable to eat. This fact is in the FDA’s final report approving radiation.

I want to emphasize that these studies should have set off alarm bells all across the country. For example:

At the University of Illinois, the Department of Medicine, fed radiated food to mice. Seventeen percent had to be killed or died because of respiratory problems so severe they couldn’t even move around their cages. They did autopsies. The hearts of the mice had enlarged two or three times normal size, and in some cases had burst.

This is so often seen in animal feeding studies with radiated food that it’s commonly referred to as the "hemorrhagic syndrome." Researchers at the Medical College of Virginia fed rats radiated beef. All the male rats died of hemorrhagic syndrome within 34 days. They investigated the effect of hormones by castrating a group of male rats and then feeding them with radiated beef. They all died within 63 days, as did all the female rats.

If you think the danger only arises from a heavy diet of radiated foods, think again. In another study at the University of Michigan, researchers radiated table sugar and then stored it for months. They then made up a white-blood-cell culture with less than 1% of the sucrose and a "control" culture medium with the same amount of non-radiated sugar. They grew white-blood-cells, lymphocytes, in both culture media. The researchers reported that the radiated culture was "extremely toxic to lymphocytes." Cell division was reduced and the chromosomes were grossly damaged to the point that they appeared to be shattered or pulverized!! Remember that the lymphocytes themselves were never radiated, but only exposed to 1% of a radiated solution!!

Exposing lymphocytes to even a slightly radiated culture medium makes them look like they’d actually been radiated themselves. The control group (non-radiated culture) was perfectly fine.

So didn’t FDA know about these studies?? This is where it gets really unbelievable. They started with 441 studies, including the foregoing. They "accepted" 226 for further review. They further narrowed their criteria and selected only 69 for in-depth review. Of these, the FDA itself reported that 32 showed adverse effects and 37 suggested safety. Then, without explanation, they eliminated all but 5 of these 69 studies, including all 32 adverse ones, and announced they’d make a decision on those five alone. Results--stamp it approved!!

Did you see that? They started with 441 and only used the data from 5 !! Outraged yet? Keep reading.

So today not only our herbs, fruits, wheat, flour, spices, nuts, seeds, peas, vegetables, pork and chicken are o.k. for radiation treatment, but now it's the beef also.

Don’t they have to label this stuff?? (what do you think?) The FDA requires a label only if "whole food" is radiated and then sold unchanged. But, if you process it in any way, or add any other ingredient to it, no label disclosure is required !!!

Gut instinct alone should tell any rational person to stay away from man made molecules never before found in nature. The potential harm from radiated foods is very real and very frightening. I don't draw much comfort from a FDA commissioner that tells me he "thinks" it is safe or from a FDA chemist that may or may not be aware of all the studies pointing out valid concerns.

It’s difficult to obtain accurate information as to how wide spread the application of radiation is at this time. Food companies are certainly not going to admit using it and the present laws are laughable. The only organization that I know of that is exclusively concerned with the issue is "Food and Water Inc.".

If you choose to, they can be contacted at:
1-800-EAT-SAFE, or at
R.R. 1, Box 114, Depot Hill Road, Marshfield, Vermont, 05658
Tel: 804-426-3700 Fax: 802-426-3711

The beef industry has certainly used the E. Coli scare of the summer of 1997 to its advantage. Rather than cleaning up their act they have stampeeded the FDA to approve a dubious process that the public will have no way of knowing what has been treated and what hasn't.

I know there are economics involved, but who picks up the cost of the increased health care tab once irradiated beef hits the market? (that will be a whole nother post) I suppose that any carcasses that have received an "overdose" will be sent to our friendly local rendering plant to be used for dog and cat food?

Maybe McDonalds will add a "nuclear waste" logo to their Golden Arches?

It is sickening, what's going on in the food and drug industries and I know you're wondering just where it will end. In my opinion, it won't.

Get all the information you can, when you can. Educate yourself.

More Info Links :

http://ext.vt.edu/pubs/foods/458-300/458-300.html

http://suite101.com/article.cfm/food_safety/87768/1

Got Pus?

There are a number of concerns about everyday products. Many health practitioners believe (and I agree) that about 90% of the American population is allergic to milk in ways that are not so obvious.

Some people are most concerned about the negative effects of homogenization and the probable role that plays in heart disease. This article is focused primarily on the concern of the use of rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone), a genetically engineered hormone that is injected into dairy cows to increase their production of milk. The evidence of the harm of this (e.g. cancer) is growing at an alarming rate.

Have you ever considered :

...humans are the only "animal" that get their milk from another species?

...humans are the only species that drink milk throughout adulthood?

...what effects growth hormones in our meat products and dairy products could have on our children after many years of consumption?

Make your own decision. I am just giving you an opportunity to be informed about a perspective that appears to be supported with some strong evidence.

If I offered to whip you up a little brew of the following, would you be interested?

· Pituitary hormones (regulates other hormones) - PRL, GH, TSH, FSH, LH ACTH Oxytocin

· Steroid hormones - Estradiol, Estriol, Progesterone, Testosterone, 17-Ketosteroids, Corticosterone, Vitamine D

· Hypothalamic hormones (body temp regulators) - TRH, LHRH, Somatostatin, PRL-inhibiting factor, PRL-releasing factor, GnRH, GRH

· Thyroid and Parathyroid hormones (metabolism regulators) - T3, T4, rT3, Calcitonin, Parathormone, PTH peptide

· Gastrointestinal peptides (digestion and nutrition absorption) - Gastrin,
Gastrin inhibitory peptide, Vasoactive intestinal peptide, Bombesin, Cholecystokinin, Pancreatic peptide, Y peptide, Substance P and Neurotensin

· Growth Factors - IGF's (I and II), IGF binding proteins, Nerve growth factor, Epidermal growth factor and TGF alpha, TGF beta, Growth Inhibitors MDGI and MAF, and Platelet derived growth factor

· Others... (PGE, PGF2 alpha, cAMP, cGMP, Delta sleep inducing peptide, Transferrin, Lactoferrin, Casomorphin and Erythropoietin...

I don't think you would readily consume it!

And I don't care what anybody says, growth hormones, fat, cholesterol, allergenic proteins, blood, pus, antibiotics, bacteria, and viruses do not "do a body good!".

Then why does such a large portion of America continue to buy dairy products when they go shopping? Corporate brainwashing and propaganda, that's why! Obviously words like "pus" would turn most educated consumers off, so the mega dairy industry continues to spend billions of dollars each and every year to glamorize the drinking of milk and convince us that it's the only worthwhile source of calcium, and that without it, our bones are going to become brittle and crumble like the great walls of Jericho.

This is a huge lie!

And we're talking about some of the same companies that tried to convince us that Agent Orange and PCB's weren't going to be harmful to us either. Take my advice, you want a good source of calcium, go eat a bowl of organic broccoli!

Notwithstanding that dairy products are bad for us to begin with, let's consider that in late 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made things even worse by giving permission for Monsanto Corporation to market rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone), a genetically engineered hormone that is injected into dairy cows to increase their production of milk. We're talking about a substance that is finally being linked to major breast, colon and prostrate problems, and one that no other country in the world will allow within its borders, though Monsanto has sought approval in Australia, New Zealand, the European Union and Canada. The FDA based their "safe" opinion of rBGH partially off an unpublished Monsanto study of rats fed rBGH in high doses for 90 days.

They concluded that, "No oral activity was found when rBGH was administered to rats at exaggerated doses", yet a recent Canadian government report indicates that the findings of Monsanto's study were misreported by the FDA. The Canadian report says that 20% to 30% of the rats fed rBGH in high doses developed primary antibody responses, indicating that this hormone was absorbed into the rats' blood.

Furthermore, cysts reportedly developed on the thyroids of the male rats and some increased infiltration of the prostate gland occurred. If these kinds of reactions are turning up after only 90 days of use on rodents, what do you think is happening to people who have been drinking rBGH produced milk sinse childhood? No wonder other countries are leery of what we have to say. What's really scary is that tens of thousands of US dairy cows are injected with rBGH each week, and virtually the entire American population is exposed to milk from rBGH-treated cows when they buy milk, cream, cheese, yogurt, frozen yogurt, buttermilk, cream cheese, ice cream, iced milk, and baked goods.

And just why has rBGH become so important to the American dairy industry, anyway? There's certainly no health-related need for it. The farmers don't need it, the cows don't need it, and human beings are dying from it. It's trade name is POSILAC, and in cows, it has been associated with increases in cystic ovaries, disorders of the uterus, digestive problems, enlarged hocks and lesions of the knee, not to mention mastitis (pus clusters found in the tits of the cows). This, of course, increases the cows' need for additional antibiotics. Yuck!

Believe me, the last thing in the world you want to do is put antibiotics into your body unnecessarily. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) now tells us that antibiotic resistance in this country is at an all time high and is now a "major public health crisis." My God, when is man going to learn that when he tries to mess with Intelligent Design for economic gain, the end result always has been and always will be suffering and disease? And what is our great need to produce more milk in the first place when we already have a dairy surplus of over a quarter million tons of milk each year and the government uses a billion of our annual tax dollars to sop it up? Are we talking gross waste here, or what?

For those of you that don't know, POSILAC increases milk production by releasing a chemical called IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor #1), which McGill University and the Harvard School of Public Health have recently found is a strong predictor of prostate cancer risk. Published in Science and funded, in part, by the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Initiative, these findings have shown a four-fold increased risk of developing prostate cancer among men who have high levels of IGF-1.

In fact, Dr. Michael Pollak, professor of medicine and oncology at McGill University says, "Until now, researchers interested in prostate cancer risk factors have focused on male hormones such as testosterone, but these [IGF-1] results open up a whole new direction of research. This is the same order of magnitude as the relationship between cholesterol levels and the risk of getting heart disease."

For the past decade, Dr. Pollak has worked extensively in the laboratory with IGF-1 and he explains that it may very well trigger a higher rate of cell division and proliferation, thereby making it more likely for a cellular genetic accident to occur, leading to cancer. Although there have been no long term studies of rBGH's effects on humans, elevated IGF-1 is now being linked to breast cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, acromegaly, hypertension, diabetes, and gynecomastia (growth of breasts in men).

Even the Congressional General Accounting Office has been warning us about drinking too much milk lately. There is also concern that the widespread use of rBGH will increase the amount of rendered animal protein that dairy cattle -- of whom we eat 2.6 billion pounds annually -- consume. In the US, a minimum of 14% of the remains of rendered cattle is fed to other cows, now increasing the risk of spreading bovine spongiform encephalopathy, known as Mad Cow Disease.

So now, if you eat meat, if you don't die from cancer, there's a good chance you might go mad instead! The latest studies and statistics from the National Cancer Program's SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) says that cancer is on the rise and estimates that there were over 131,000 deaths caused by breast, colon and prostrate cancer in 1998 alone.

The bottom line here is that the American public better wake up and realize that things aren't always what they seem, and just because a government agency or a mega corporation tells you something, it doesn't necessarily mean it's so. A good example of this is the case of where the FDA stated that pasteurizing milk would effectively kill the myco-bacterium paratuberculosis that's found in cow's milk.

Well, it is not true, and the British medical journal, LANCET, recently revealed a direct link between this bacteria and Crohn's disease in humans. Cows get a disease called Johne's (pronounced: yo-nees) and pass on this bacteria to humans in milk and dairy products. We're talking about another nightmare here, and a diagnosis of Crohn's disease usually results after many years of irritable bowel syndrome, a condition shared by more than six million Americans, most of them women, manifesting itself in a shared symptom with cows of persistent diarrhea.

According to a USDA study on this subject conducted by scientist Judy Stabel, Ph.D, "The bacteria are not totally inactivated until after 15 minutes of pasteurization at 72 degrees centigrade." This isn't very reassuring when you consider that at this temperature, normal US pasteurization practises call for a 15 second treatment, not 15 minutes !

What does it tell you when Steve Wilson and Jane Acre (the former husband and wife investigative team for the FOX TV affiliate WTVT in Tampa,Florida) were fired for refusing to back off their series on the harmful effects of rBGH used in the production of American milk and dairy products? They're now in the middle of a two million dollar lawsuit against New World Communications and Fox TV. In investigating the use of rBGH in cows in Southern Florida, Wilson and Acre found that Florida grocers had made promises to consumers that they wouldn't buy milk from rBGH-treated cows. But when the couple traveled to the farms where local milk was being produced, they managed to film cows being injected with rBGH, and discovered that the grocers had reneged on their promise. They also reported how levels of IGF-1 were increased in rBGH produced milk, and further, how increased IGF-1 levels were now being linked to increased breast cancer rates. Their initial four-part series was to have aired on February 24, 1997. WTVT had, in fact, already begun to advertise the upcoming series, but after heavy pressure from Monsanto's lawyers, including threats of "dire consequences" if the story ran, WTVT cancelled the series. When the reporters protested, they were told by the general manager, "We paid three billion dollars for these television stations and we'll tell you what the news is." According to Wilson and Acre, they were eventually offered a payment of $200,000 for their silence on this issue, but when they refused, they were fired from WTVT on December 2, 1997. Wilson and Acre were also told to say that rBGH was endorsed by the AMA. The AMA does not officially endorse products, reported Wilson, although it accepted money from Monsanto to produce a pro-rBGH video, which does seem to qualify as an endorsement by any reasonable standard.

If you're interested in receiving a video copy of their censored rBGH story, you can get in touch with the GREEN ACRE NEWS, 4222 Harmony Lane SE, Iowa City, IA 52240-9385. Steve Wilson says that since the video is now Exhibit K at their pending trial, it is public information and can be freely distributed. Send them a blank video tape and they will be glad to make a copy for you. Sit back and watch. You won't believe your eyes!

This whole fiasco reminds me of some weird X-file, only this stuff is really happening and the victims are real consumers. Take a stand by saying no to dairy! The moment we stop buying non organic, government controlled, dairy products, you will
1.) take responsibility for making an educated decision regarding your own health
2.) help to curb the occurance of cancer in humans
3.) take part in stopping millions of our dollars being directed into the wrong hands, as well as
4.) helping to stop the unethical treatment of cows.

For more info and references :
http://www.antidairycoalition.com

Milk: The Deadly Poison by Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk.com

Understandably, you will want an acceptable substitute for your baby following breastfeeding. I, personally, would recommend buying organic milk from organically raised cows. However, I am not alone in my belief that after sufficient breastfeeding, a child may go directly to a sippy cup with other healthful beverages, ie.- organic juices (1/3 water to 2/3 juice), water, etc.

Be blessed, Be strong, and Press on........