Study Found Toxin from GM Crops is Showing up in Human Blood

Published on June 5, 2011

Posted By Dr. Mercola | May 31 2011 |

Genetically Modified Crops

A new study is causing fresh doubts about the safety of genetically modified crops. The research found Bt toxin, which is present in many GM crops, in human blood.

Bt toxin makes crops toxic to pests, but it has been claimed that the toxin poses no danger to the environment and human health; the argument was that the protein breaks down in the human gut. But the presence of the toxin in human blood shows that this does not happen.

India Today reports:

“Scientists … have detected the insecticidal protein … circulating in the blood of pregnant as well as non-pregnant women. They have also detected the toxin in fetal blood, implying it could pass on to the next generation.”

Sources:

India Today May 11, 2011

Reproductive Toxicology February 18, 2011

Dr. Mercola’s Comments

Cry1Ab, a specific type of Bt toxin from genetically modified (GM) crops, has for the first time been detected in human and fetal blood samples. It appears the toxin is quite prevalent, as upon testing 69 pregnant and non-pregnant women who were eating a typical Canadian diet (which included foods such as GM soy, corn and potatoes), researchers found Bt toxin in:

93 percent of maternal blood samples
80 percent of fetal blood samples
69 percent of non-pregnant women blood samples

Writing in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, the researchers noted:

“This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF [pesticides associated with genetically modified foods] in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities.”

This GM insecticide toxin is already showing up in fetal blood, which means it could have an untold impact on future generations.

Bt Toxin is a Built-In Pesticide

Upwards of 85 percent of U.S. corn crops contain a special gene added that allows them to produce an insecticide. This way, when bugs attempt to eat the corn they’re killed right away (specifically their stomach is split open) because the plant contains an invisible, built-in pesticide shield.

The particular gene added to most corn crops is a type of Bt-toxin — produced from Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria. Genetic engineers remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and insert it into the DNA of corn (and cotton) plants.

They claim that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in human stomachs — and even if it survived, it won’t cause reactions in humans or mammals …

But studies are now showing that this is not the case, as Bt toxin is readily passing into the human bloodstream and animal studies have already shown that Bt-toxin does cause health effects in animals, including potentially humans. As Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, wrote:

“Mice fed natural Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses and caused them to become sensitive to other formerly harmless compounds. This suggests that Bt-toxin might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances.

Farm workers and others have also had reactions to natural Bt-toxin, and authorities acknowledge that “People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt.”

In fact, when natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room.

… The Bt-toxin produced in the GM plants is probably more dangerous than in its natural spray form. In the plants, the toxin is about 3,000-5,000 times more concentrated than the spray, it doesn’t wash off the plants like the spray does, nd it is designed to be more toxic than the natural version.

In fact, the GM toxin has properties of known allergens and fails all three GM allergy tests recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others.”

GM Insecticide Poisons Also Showing Up in Waterways

Given that Bt toxin has now been confirmed in the human bloodstream, it should come as no surprise that it has also infiltrated the environment. According to one study, 50 of the 217 streams, ditches and drains near cornfields that researchers tested were found to contain Cry1Ab above six nanograms per liter.

The protein is getting into the waterways via corn stalks, leaves, husks and cobs that blow into the water — a phenomenon that’s incredibly common since farmers often leave such material in fields to help minimize soil erosion.

Eighty-six percent of the streams tested contained various corn material with the potential to transmit Bt-toxin into the water. Further, because the study was conducted six months after crops were harvested, it indicates that the GM protein lingers in the environment. Now that this GM toxin is showing up in waterways, it has the potential to devastate aquatic life and continue to spread, uncontrolled and unrestricted, across the entire United States and world.

GM Foods May be Leaving GM Proteins in Your Body

In case it’s not clear, I want to reiterate that this new study in Reproductive Technology has confirmed that if you eat GM foods that contain the insecticidal Bt toxin, it appears likely that it will be transferred to your bloodstream.

As I mentioned earlier, as of right now about 85 percent of the corn grown in the United States is genetically engineered to either produce an insecticide, or to survive the application of herbicide. And about 91-93 percent of all soybeans are genetically engineered to survive massive doses of Roundup herbicide.

What this means is that nearly ALL foods you buy that contain either corn or soy, in any form, will contain GM components unless it’s certified organic by the USDA.

There’s very convincing evidence that eating these genetically modified foods spells nothing but trouble for your health. As Smith discusses in this interview, scientists have discovered a number of health problems related to genetically modified foods in general, however these studies have been repeatedly ignored by both the European Food Safety Authority and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In the only human feeding study ever published on genetically modified foods, seven volunteers ate Roundup-ready soybeans. These are soybeans that have herbicide-resistant genes inserted into them in order to survive being sprayed with otherwise deadly doses of Roundup herbicide.

In three of the seven volunteers, the gene inserted into the soy transferred into the DNA of their intestinal bacteria, and continued to function long after they stopped eating the GM soy.

However, the GM-friendly UK government, who funded the study, chose not to fund any follow up research to see if GM corn — which contains the BT toxin — might also transfer and continue to create insecticide inside your intestines. Now the evidence has come through nonetheless, as the study in Reproductive Technology shows that it does transfer, at least to your bloodstream (and the bloodstream of your baby if you’re pregnant).

This is extremely concerning, as in this interview Smith also mentions an Italian study where they fed BT corn to mice. As a result, the mice expressed a wide variety of immune responses commonly associated with diseases such as:

Rheumatoid arthritis	Inflammatory bowel disease	Osteoporosis
Atherosclerosis	Various types of cancer	Allergies
Lou Gehrig’s disease

I’ve gone on record saying that due to the amount of GM crops now grown in the United States, EVERY processed food you encounter at your local supermarket that does not bear the “USDA Organic” label is filled with GM components. So you’re eating GM foods, and you have been for the last decade, whether you knew it or not. You can thank Congress for this, and the USDA and Monsanto. What ultimate impact these GM foods will have on your health is still unknown, but increased disease, infertility and birth defects appear to be on the top of the list of most likely side effects.

How to Say “No” to GMOs

If you don’t already have a copy of the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, please print one out and refer to it often. It can help you identify and avoid foods with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Also remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.

You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

If you’re feeling more ambitious, you can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure from the Institute of Responsible Technology in bulk and give it to your family and friends. When possible, buy your fresh produce and meat from local farmers who have committed to using non-GM seeds and avoid non-organic processed foods as much as possible, as again these are virtually 100-percent guaranteed to contain GM ingredients.

E.coli superbug outbreak in Germany due to abuse of antibiotics in meat production

Published on June 5, 2011

hursday, June 02, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

Read the original article here

(NaturalNews) The e.coli outbreak in Germany is raising alarm worldwide as scientists are now describing this particular strain of e.coli as “extremely aggressive and toxic.” Even worse, the strain is resistant to antibiotics, making it one of the world’s first widespread superbug food infections that’s racking up a noticeable body count while sickening thousands.

Of course, virtually every report you’ll read on this in the mainstream media has the facts wrong. This isn’t about cucumbers being dangerous, because e.coli does not grow on cucumbers. E.coli is an intestinal strain of bacteria that only grows inside the guts of animals (and people). Thus, the source of all this e.coli is ANIMAL, not vegetable.

But the media won’t admit that. Because the whole agenda here is to kill your vegetables but protect the atrocious practices of the factory animal meat industries. The FDA, in particular, loves all these outbreaks because it gives them more moral authority to clamp down on gardens and farms. They’ve been trying to irradiate and fumigate fresh veggies in the USA for years. (http://www.naturalnews.com/023015_f…)

Meanwhile, scientists have been cracking the code of this particular lethal strain of e.coli. Microbiologists from the University Clinic Hamburg-Eppendorf now say “A preliminary analysis pointed to possible reasons for this strain of E. coli’s extreme aggressiveness and resistance to antibiotics. In addition, it can now be researched how this new type of E. coli strain developed, why the strain can spread at great speed and why the illness it unleashes is so serious.” (http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/Ki…)

Complete blackout of the obvious source of this new strain

The mainstream media is predictably pretending it has no idea where this new strain came from. They’re all scratching their heads and just focusing on the “killer cucumbers” which is of course a particularly lame bit of disinfo.

Want to know where this e.coli really came from? The abuse of antibiotics in factory animal farms.

Factory animal farm operations, you see, raise cattle, pigs and chickens in such atrociously bad and dirty conditions that they have to pump them full of antibiotics just to avoid the rapid spread of infection. This constant dosing with antibiotics creates the perfect breeding ground for superbugs in the guts of these animals.

Then, these animals defecate and drop billions of e.coli bacteria with their stools which are then collected and used as crop fertilizers. So the crops are actually grown in this stuff that’s contaminated with animal fecal matter containing antibiotics-induced superbugs.

The veggies grown in the e.coli fertilizer then get shipped to supermarkets, where people buy the produce and fail to wash it properly. Once they consume it, the e.coli goes to work in their own guts which are largely devoid of friendly flora because many people are also on antibiotics which wipe out their own intestinal flora, creating a perfect environment for food borne infection.

That’s when people start dying, you see. It’s all basic cause and effect.

So, you see, antibiotics play a double role in this tragedy: They’re widely abused throughout the animal ranching industry, and they’re also widely abused by doctors treating human patients. And yet the media is just strangely reluctant to print this obvious fact. They almost outright refuse to tell readers the truth: E.coli superbugs are an antibiotics problem, not a vegetable problem!

What the press says about this outbreak – wow!

Some astonishing quotes from the press:

Chinese and German scientists analyzed the DNA of the E. coli bacteria and determined that the outbreak was caused by “an entirely new, super-toxic” strain that contains several antibiotic-resistant genes, according to a statement from the Shenzhen, China-based laboratory BGI. It said the strain appeared to be a combination of two types of E. coli.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4324754…

“This is a unique strain that has never been isolated from patients before,” Hilde Kruse, a food safety expert at the World Health Organization, told The Associated Press. The new strain has “various characteristics that make it more virulent and toxin-producing” than the many E. coli strains people naturally carry in their intestines. Preliminary genetic sequencing suggests the strain is a never before seen combination of two different E. coli bacteria, with aggressive genes that could explain why the outbreak appears to be so massive and dangerous, the agency said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110602…

How to protect yourself from e.coli

On the practical side, what can you do to protect yourself from e.coli contamination of vegetables? There are FOUR simple things you can do:

1) EAT LOCAL. Grow your own food and / or buy from local farmers’ markets.

2) WASH YOUR VEGGIES. If you wash them well, even e.coli won’t be a problem. The e.coli is only present in those veggies that aren’t adequately washed.

3) TAKE PROBIOTICS. The more “friendly” bacteria you have in your gut, the less space there is for toxic e.coli to take hold. The secret truth about these infections — that you’re not being told — is that virtually everyone infected with toxic e.coli is someone with compromised digestive flora. Taking probiotics gives you a buffer against invading nasties.

4) AVOID ANTIBIOTICS. Most antibiotics are prescribed to humans by clueless doctors who prescribe them for things like viral infections and asthma, none of which are treated in the least by antibiotics.

These four simple steps will protect nearly everyone from e.coli infections acquired through food. So why doesn’t the mainstream media teach people these four simple steps? Because they’re too busy blaming cucumbers, tomatoes and spinach, I guess. They’re utterly ignorant of the simple dynamics of e.coli superbug mutation and propagation.

Food safety isn’t rocket science, folks. It’s simpler than you’ve been told. And it’s based on the fundamental idea that you shouldn’t raise cattle, hogs and chicken in dirty, inhumane conditions requiring a constant dose of chemical antibiotics just to keep them alive.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032590_ecoli_superbugs.html#ixzz1OMOsQD6S

Sunscreens Exposed: 9 surprising truths

Published on June 1, 20112 Comments

Read the original article here

Published on EWG’s (Environtmental Working Group) Skin Deep, Sunscreens 2011

Sunscreens prevent sunburns, but beyond that simple fact surprisingly little is known about the safety and efficacy of these ubiquitous creams and sprays. FDA’s failure to finalize its 1978 sunscreen safety standards both epitomizes and perpetuates this state of confusion. EWG’s review of the latest research unearthed troubling facts that might tempt you to give up on sunscreens altogether. That’s not the right answer – despite the unknowns about their efficacy, public health agencies still recommend using sunscreens, just not as your first line of defense against the sun. At EWG we use sunscreens, but we look for shade, wear protective clothing and avoid the noontime sun before we smear on the cream. Here are the surprising facts:

1. There’s no consensus on whether sunscreens prevent skin cancer.

The Food and Drug Administration’s 2007 draft sunscreen safety regulations say: “FDA is not aware of data demonstrating that sunscreen use alone helps prevent skin cancer” (FDA 2007). The International Agency for Research on Cancer agrees. IARC recommends clothing, hats and shade as primary barriers to UV radiation and writes that “sunscreens should not be the first choice for skin cancer prevention and should not be used as the sole agent for protection against the sun” (IARC 2001a). Read more.

2. There’s some evidence that sunscreens might increase the risk of the deadliest form of skin cancer for some people.

Some researchers have detected an increased risk of melanoma among sunscreen users. No one knows the cause, but scientists speculate that sunscreen users stay out in the sun longer and absorb more radiation overall, or that free radicals released as sunscreen chemicals break down in sunlight may play a role. One other hunch: Inferior sunscreens with poor UVA protection that have dominated the market for 30 years may have led to this surprising outcome. All major public health agencies still advise using sunscreens, but they also stress the importance of shade, clothing and timing. Read more.

3. There are more high SPF products than ever before, but no proof that they’re better.

In 2007 the FDA published draft regulations that would prohibit companies from labeling sunscreens with an SPF (sun protection factor) higher than “SPF 50+.” The agency wrote that higher values were “inherently misleading,” given that “there is no assurance that the specific values themselves are in fact truthful…” (FDA 2007). Scientists are also worried that high-SPF products may tempt people to stay in the sun too long, suppressing sunburns (a late, key warning of overexposure) while upping the risks of other kinds of skin damage.

Flaunting FDA’s proposed regulation, companies substantially increased their high-SPF offerings in 2011. Nearly one in five products now lists SPF values higher than “50+”, compared to only one in eight in 2009, according to EWG’s analysis of more than 600 beach and sport sunscreens. Among the worst offenders are Walgreens and CVS stores and Neutrogena. Walgreens’ boasts of SPF higher than “50+” on nearly half of its sunscreens; CVS and Neutrogena make the same misleading claim on about a third of theirs. Read more.

4. Too little sun might be harmful, reducing the body’s vitamin D levels.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that sunshine serves a critical function in the body that sunscreen appears to inhibit — production of vitamin D. The main source of vitamin D in the body is sunshine, and the compound is enormously important to health – it strengthens bones and the immune system, reduces the risk of various cancers (including breast, colon, kidney, and ovarian cancers) and regulates at least 1,000 different genes governing virtually every tissue in the body (Mead 2008). Over the last two decades, vitamin D levels in the U.S. population have been decreasing steadily, creating a “growing epidemic of vitamin D insufficiency” (Ginde 2009a). Seven of every 10 U.S. children now have low levels. Those most likely to be deficient include children who are obese or who spend more than four hours daily in front of the TV, computer or video games (Kumar 2009).

Experts disagree on the solution. The American Medical Association has recommended 10 minutes of direct sun (without sunscreen) several times a week (AMA 2008), while the American Academy of Dermatology holds that “there is no scientifically validated, safe threshold level of UV exposure from the sun that allows for maximal vitamin D synthesis without increasing skin cancer risk” (AAD 2009). Vitamin D supplements are the alternative, but there is debate over the proper amount. The Institute of Medicine has launched new research to reassess the current guidelines. In the meantime, your doctor can test your vitamin D levels and give advice on sunshine versus supplements. Read more.

5. The common sunscreen ingredient vitamin A may speed the development of cancer.

Recently available data from an FDA study indicate that a form of vitamin A, retinyl palmitate, when applied to the skin in the presence of sunlight, may speed the development of skin tumors and lesions (NTP 2009). This evidence is troubling because the sunscreen industry adds vitamin A to 30 percent of all sunscreens.

The industry puts vitamin A in its formulations because it is an anti-oxidant that slows skin aging. That may be true for lotions and night creams used indoors, but FDA recently conducted a study of vitamin A’s photocarcinogenic properties, the possibility that it results in cancerous tumors when used on skin exposed to sunlight. Scientists have known for some time that vitamin A can spur excess skin growth (hyperplasia), and that in sunlight it can form free radicals that damage DNA (NTP 2000).

In FDA’s one-year study, tumors and lesions developed up to 21 percent sooner in lab animals coated in a vitamin A-laced cream (at a concentration of 0.5%) than animals treated with a vitamin-free cream. Both groups were exposed to the equivalent of just nine minutes of maximum intensity sunlight each day.

It’s an ironic twist for an industry already battling studies on whether their products protect against skin cancer. The FDA data are preliminary, but if they hold up in the final assessment, the sunscreen industry has a big problem. In the meantime, EWG recommends that consumers avoid sunscreens with vitamin A (look for “retinyl palmitate” or “retinol” on the label). Read more.

6. Free radicals and other skin-damaging byproducts of sunscreen.

Both UV radiation and many common sunscreen ingredients generate free radicals that damage DNA and skin cells, accelerate skin aging and cause skin cancer. An effective sunscreen prevents more damage than it causes, but sunscreens are far better at preventing sunburn than at limiting free radical damage. While typical SPF ratings for sunburn protection range from 15 to 50, equivalent “free radical protection factors” fall at only about 2. When consumers apply too little sunscreen or reapply it infrequently, behaviors that are more common than not, sunscreens can cause more free radical damage than UV rays on bare skin. Read more.

7. Pick your sunscreen: nanomaterials or potential hormone disruptors.

The ideal sunscreen would completely block the UV rays that cause sunburn, immune suppression and damaging free radicals. It would remain effective on the skin for several hours and not form harmful ingredients when degraded by UV light. It would smell and feel pleasant so that people use it in the right amount and frequency.

Unsurprisingly, there is currently no sunscreen that meets all of these criteria. The major choice in the U.S. is between “chemical” sunscreens, which have inferior stability, penetrate the skin and may disrupt the body’s hormone systems, and “mineral” sunscreens (zinc and titanium), which often contain micronized- or nano-scale particles of those minerals.

After reviewing the evidence, EWG determined that mineral sunscreens have the best safety profile of today’s choices. They are stable in sunlight and do not appear to penetrate the skin. They offer UVA protection, which is sorely lacking in most of today’s sunscreen products. Mexoryl SX (ecamsule) is another good option, but it’s sold in very few formulations. Tinosorb S and M could be great solutions but are not yet available in the U.S. For consumers who don’t like mineral products, we recommend sunscreens with avobenzone (3 percent for the best UVA protection) and without the notorious hormone disruptors oxybenzone or 4-MBC. Scientists have called for parents to avoid using oxybenzone on children due to penetration and toxicity concerns. Read more.

8. Europe’s better sunscreens.

Sunscreen makers and users in Europe have more options than in the United States. In Europe, sunscreen makers can select from among 27 chemicals for their formulations, compared to 17 in the U.S. Companies selling in Europe can add any of seven UVA filters to their products, but have a choice of only three when they market in the U.S. European sunscreens could earn FDA’s proposed four-star top rating for UVA protection, while the best U.S. products would earn only three stars. Sunscreen chemicals approved in Europe but not by the FDA provide up to five times more UVA protection; U.S. companies have been waiting five years for FDA approval to use the same compounds. Last but not least, Europeans will find many sunscreens with strong (mandatory) UVA protection if proposed regulations in Europe are finalized. Under FDA’s current proposal, Americans will not. Read more.

9. The 34th summer in a row without final U.S. sunscreen safety regulations.

In the United States, consumer protection has stalled because of the FDA’s 33-year effort to set enforceable guidelines for consumer protection. EWG has found a number of serious problems with existing sunscreens, including overstated claims about their perfomance and inadequate UVA protection. Many of these will be remedied if and when the FDA’s proposed sunscreen rule takes effect. But even after the rule is enacted, gaps will remain. FDA does not consider serious toxicity concerns such as hormone disruption when approving new sun filters. The new rules would also still allow sunscreen makers to use ingredients like vitamin A that can damage the skin in sunlight, and would fail to require makers to measure sunscreen stability despite ample evidence that many products break down quickly in sunlight. Read more.

———————————————————————————————————————————————-

Tips for Enjoying the Summer Outdoors by Dr. Mercola

If Your Sunscreen Contains Any of These Chemicals That I Consider Dangerous and Potentially Life Threatening, Do Yourself a BIG Favor…

Dump it in the trash now . Yes, that’s right. Toss your sunscreen in the trash if it contains any of these questionable chemicals:

Para amino benzoic acid…
Octyl salicyclate…
Avobenzone…
Oxybenzone…
Cinoxate…
Padimate O…
Dioxybenzone…
Phenylbenzimidazole…
Homosalate…
Sulisobenzone…
Menthyl anthranilate…
Trolamine salicyclate…
Octocrylene…

And, oh yes, let me not forget…

Potentially harmful chemicals such as dioxybenzone and oxybenzone (two chemicals I just mentioned) are some of the most powerful free radical generators known to man!

So if your sunscreen contains dioxybenzone, oxybenzone, or any of the other chemicals I just revealed, I highly recommend you switch to a formula that is safe and healthy for your skin.

And a note to moms … You are undoubtedly very conscientious about caring for your children. But when you lather up your son or daughter with sunscreen thinking you’re doing the right thing, you could in fact be doing more harm than good.

So check the labels on your sunscreen, and throw them out if they contain any of the potentially dangerous chemicals named above. After all, your skin is your largest organ, as your child’s skin is theirs.

Fortunately, there’s a much better option than chemical-laden commercial sunscreens…

Top 7 Supermarket Foods to Avoid

Published on May 30, 2011

Emma Sgourakis
Food Matters
May 14, 2011

Read the original article here

In a recent article, seven experts in the fields of both food and the environment (scientists, doctors and farmers) were asked just one simple question: “What foods do you avoid?” Their responses had nothing to do with calories or nutrient-density, but all to do with their insider knowledge on how certain seemingly “healthy” foods that they closely work with are produced and packaged. The findings are scary.

If the farmer who grows the food won’t eat it himself, then I won’t touch it either.

Here’s a summary of the findings. You can add these seven to your ‘Foods to Avoid‘ list:

1. Canned Tomatoes

An endocrinologist and expert on the topic of the synthetic oestrogen bisphenol-A (BCA), linked to heart disease and infertility, won’t go near canned tomatoes. Tin cans are lined with a resin containing BCA which is especially a problem with canning tomatoes, as the acid in tomato breaks this down in dangerous amounts. This is a serious health concern for everyone who loves a Spag Bol, especially children. My advice: if you still want the convenience of stored, ready-to-cook tomatoes, opt for sauces and passata in glass bottles.

2. Conventional Beef

For fat cows (and fat people) feed them grain, corn and soy. This is what farmers do to increase profits. The end product is meat that is nutritionally inferior. Cows were meant to eat grass. Studies show that grass-fed beef (compared to corn-fed) is higher in important vitamins, minerals and the heart-healthy, anti-inflammatory fats. Then there’s also the issue of all the antibiotics used on those inappropriately-fed, sick cows… My advice: Look for “grass-fed” or “pasture-fed” organic beef from strong healthy beasts.

3. Microwave Popcorn

Another poisonous packaging issue: Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) lines the bags of those popcorn bags, and the heat in the microwave leaches this straight onto your movie munchies. The UCLA links this compound to infertility. My advice: Corn kernels + butter + sea salt + plus a big pot (with a lid!) Simple.

4. Conventional Potatoes

More than any other vegetable, non-organic potatoes are heavily sprayed with herbicides, pesticides and fungicides throughout every stage of their growth, harvesting and storage. So much so that potato growers never eat the potatoes they sell and grow their own separate plots without all the chemicals. My advice: Organic or Bio-dynamic potatoes only.

5. Farmed Salmon

This is particularly scary considering that in Australia, the only fresh Salmon we have access to is farmed; all farmed, this includes “Atlantic” Salmon. These fish are crammed in pens and fed all manner of junk from soy and hydrolyzed chicken feathers and pellets. A scientific study on fish contamination showed high levels of DDT and PCB’s (carcinogens). So serious were the findings that the director for the Institute for Health warns that any more than one salmon meal every 5 months increases your cancer risk. Not to mention that fact that the levels of Omega 3 and Vitamin D are devoid in these poor factory-versions that their wild, up-stream-swimming ancestors contain. My advice: For fresh fish, choose small & wild varieties wherever available. For salmon in Australia, your only wild option is out of a tin. Look for brands like Paramount Wild Alaskan Salmon, or other brands form Norway and Canada are often wild too. Even still, eat these only occasionally.

6. Conventional Milk

Dairy cows today are fed growth hormones to maximize milk production. Not only does this make for a potentially breast/prostate/colon cancer milk shake, but it also leads to increased incidence of udder infection for the poor cow, leading to pus in the milk. My advice: if you do drink cows’ milk, make sure it states clearly on the label that it is produced without artificial hormones, and ideally choose organic whole milk from pasture-fed cows.

7. Conventional Apples

There’s no coincidence that farm workers have higher rates of many cancers. Of all common fruits, apples are the most heavily and frequently doused with pesticides. Pesticide reside on conventional fruits is also linked to Parkinson’s. To limit exposure, be wary of apples especially. My advice: Organic. Or at the very least, wash and peel.

Greenpeace: Japan nuclear plant radiation accumulating in marine life

Published on May 26, 2011

May 26th, 2011, 08:31 AMET

Read the original article here

Radiation from Japan’s damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant is accumulating in marine life off Japan’s coast above legal limits for food contamination, Greenpeace said Thursday.

The environmental group said its findings run counter to Japanese government reports that radiation from the Fukushima plant, damaged in the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, is being diluted as time passes.

“Despite what the authorities are claiming, radioactive hazards are not decreasing through dilution or dispersion of materials, but the radioactivity is instead accumulating in marine life,” Greenpeace radiation expert Jan Vande Putte said in a press release.

Greenpeace said its teams collected samples of marine life along the Fukushima coast and in international waters outside Japan’s 12-mile territorial limit. The samples were tested by nuclear research laboratories in France and Belgium, and high levels of radioactive iodine and cesium were found, it said.

Fish, shellfish and seaweed all showed significant levels of radioactive contamination, according to Greenpeace. All are widely consumed in Japan.

Besides consumers, fishermen are at risk from the elevated radiation levels, Greenpeace said.

“Ongoing contamination from the Fukushima crisis means fishermen could be at additional risk from handling fishing nets that have come in contact with radioactive sediment, hemp materials such as rope, which absorb radioactive materials, and as our research shows, radioactivity in fish and seaweed collected along Fukushima’s coast,” Wakao Hanaoka, Greenpeace’s Japan oceans campaigner, said in the statement.

The Japanese government has evacuated nearly 80,000 people from areas within 20 kilometers (12.5 miles) of the plant to reduce their radiation exposure. Tens of thousands more may be moved if an exclusion zone is widened to reduce long-term radiation exposure.

Officials from Tokyo Electric Power Co., which owns the Fukushima plant, said last week they expected an end to the nuclear crisis by January. But utility officials said this week that two of the reactors at the Fukushima plant may be riddled with holes, which would hamper plans to cool the units and bring the crisis to an end.

While no deaths have been attributed to the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the earthquake and tsunami have killed nearly 15,000 and left 10,000 more missing, Japan’s National Police Agency has reported.

France Votes to Ban Fracking

Published on May 26, 2011

By Larry West, About.com Guide May 12, 2011

Read the original article here

France is poised to become the first country to ban hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking or hydrofracking, a controversial technique used to extract natural gas and oil trapped in underground rock formations by injecting a mixture of water, sand and toxic chemicals at high pressure to crack open the rock and release the fossil fuels.

Lawmakers in the lower house of the French parliament have voted to ban hydraulic fracturing, which critics and environmentalists say pollutes the water table and contaminates drinking water. If the Senate next month votes the same way, France will set a precedent for national bans on fracking.

France gets most of its electricity from nuclear reactors, and is often held up as a model by those who want to expand the use of nuclear energy, but Japan’s recent nuclear crisis has led the French to start exploring other energy sources. That effort gained momentum recently when the European Center for Energy and Resource Security reported that Europe could cover its energy needs for the next 60 years if it developed its unconventional natural gas resources.

But while French lawmakers ponder how to exploit new energy sources and expand the nation’s energy portfolio, they are constrained by public concern over the environmental consequences. That’s especially true in light of new evidence against fracking, such as the Duke University study that found methane-contaminated drinking water in 85 percent of the private wells tested in Pennsylvania and New York.

Still, it seems no one is satisfied with the fracking ban as it is currently written. Oil and gas companies see it as an impediment. Environmentalists think it doesn’t go far enough.

If the bill is not significantly altered by the Senate, the new law would not revoke any permits that have already been granted. Instead, it would require companies to deliver a report to the government, detailing all the methods they plan to use in exploring or drilling for gas and oil. If those methods include hydraulic fracturing, the permits will be denied.

If the companies fail to report their intention to use fracking, and are discovered using it, executives could face a fine of €75,000 ($107,000) and be sent to prison.

As the bill moves to the French Senate, the debate is almost sure to devolve into the usual arguments about economy versus environment. It shouldn’t.

There is no inherent conflict between environmental sustainability and economic growth. The problem arises when industry operates with complete disregard for the environment, or when environmentalists try to block legitimate industry practices because they aren’t 100-percent green.

The world depends on energy. It’s going to take years to bring clean energy sources to the point where they can replace fossil fuels. Meanwhile, we need to find ways to extract and use fossil fuels that do the least possible damage to the environment and public health.

Fracking doesn’t meet that goal. The ban should stand. And other nations should follow France’s lead.

_{Photo by Getty Images}

Kim’s Garden Soil Recipe

Published on May 26, 20112 Comments

I am often asked about the soil in my raised beds. What do I use? How much? Where do I buy it?

The last two years I’ve attempted to garden directly in Germantown’s hard, unforgiving clay. Even after adding lots of compost I still had low yields.

This is the first year that I’ve used raised beds, so I did some experimenting. The nursery blend didn’t appeal to me because it lacked the high levels of compost and manure that I was looking for. I decided to blend my own based on what I was learning from Patty Moreno, the Garden Girl, and the Square Foot Garden technique. I couldn’t afford to follow their exact recipe so I improvised within my budget. I’m not sure how many bags of soil I purchased from Lowe’s and local nurseries but it was a lot! I tried to use 3 equal parts Pete moss/garden soil, compost/manure and top soil (instead of top soil, the square foot garden experts recommend vermiculite). In some beds I was able to use a higher percentage of compost/manure than the other ingredients. It’s more expensive if you have to buy it but the results are excellent.

My garden soil ingredients: Top soil, Black cow composted manure, organic garden soil, Pete moss, Nature’s Own garden blend, cotton burr compost, worm castings, a few have chicken manure and most have some rabbit manure. All of my beds had a layer of fall leaves at the bottom that I raked in last winter. One had homemade compost from my backyard composter.

This year I plan to do more aggressive composting so that next spring I can rely on my own animal manures and compost to enrich my soil. Buying all of this can be expensive so my goal is to build a self sufficient and sustainable system in my backyard.

I’m still experimenting with plant food. I love the tomato tone and garden tone the best. The liquid seaweed is still in the experimental stage. I use the tomato blossom spray only when the blossoms are falling off or are slow to set and grow tomatoes. When my rabbit manure catcher is full I empty it right into whichever bed looks hungriest. I also use my worm castings around a plant’s roots whenever the leaves start to yellow.

One very important ingredient that I always add to my beds after they’ve been planted and everything has grown to at least an inch, is mulch. I use hardwood mulch around every plant to inhibit weed germination and growth, to hold in soil moisture, protect my plants from drying out quickly, moderate soil-temperature fluctuations, and add nutrition to the soil. There are many different types of mulch to choose from including straw, hay, grass clippings, leaves, wood chips and Pete moss.

Kim’ Composting System

Published on May 25, 20111 Comment

A few weeks ago I cleaned out my old composting box which I built with hardware cloth and wood two years ago. The leaves and grass broke down into beautiful compost but the branches, roots and twigs were still solid. I decided to redesign my structure into two simple forms and use only grass clippings, leaves and kitchen scraps (no meat or diary products) in these. Instead of building the big boxes that I wanted, I decided to go with simple and cheap (in this case free) since my resilience money has run dry. I used my old 5′ tall hardware cloth. I secured the sides with twisties. I may pull a couple of black garbage bags over these to heat up the compost and speed up the whole process once they fill up.

I also use a large trash can that I drilled holes in for composting but I have to be careful to keep the green a brown matter equal. Too many fruits and veggies without the addition of leaves, dirt or paper products result in maggots.

Occasionally I help out the city garbage collectors by picking up the neighbor’s leaves all bagged up on the curb. In the late fall there was plenty to fill up my entire composter and cover my dormant garden beds.

My worm composter works well but slow. It takes a while for the worms to break down our scraps. The best thing about this composter is the compost tea that comes out the spigot every time it rains. I’m hoping the bottom tray will be full of castings by the end of summer.

The chickens are the best composters of all. They eat EVERYTHING and turn it into gold (eggs and manure). We don’t have eggs yet but it won’t be long now.

My Suburban Homestead Photo Gallery

Published on May 13, 20113 Comments

Kim’s Journal Entry: May 13, 2011

I’ve been gardening in Germantown for three years now and I’ve had a tough time bringing in a substantial harvest. Last year all my squash and zucchini plants died when I mulched with pine straw (too much acid) and my tomatoes stopped producing during the drought because I had a poor irrigation system. I’ve had to deal with squash worms and aphids too. I really believe that companion planting and using rabbit and chicken manure along with worm castings is really making a difference for me this year. But the biggest change that I’ve made is planting in raised beds. I LOVE raised beds! Creating my own nutritious soil mix without having to till and work our clay soil has been a huge plus. The beds keep the rabbits away and make it easy to attach trellises, netting and connect hoop houses for winter crops. Weeding is also much easier to do with raised beds. The floods and strong winds this spring would normally have hurt my garden but with raised beds every plant fared well.

Over the past three weeks I’ve added five new chicks and four bunny rabbits to my homestead experiment. I also planted a small orchard in the back yard and built a chicken fence. I planted peach and apple trees in my orchard and built a small grape trellis. All my raised beds are finally planted and I’ve been harvesting fresh, organic spinach, kale and romaine lettuce for two weeks now. We are finally picking ripe strawberries too. The girls like to help pick leafy greens for salads and pizzas. It’s so much fun to eat this way! I love the cut and come again romaine lettuce and spinach plants. YUM!

Here’s a list of the plants that I’m growing this year:

Vegetables: spinach, lettuce (romaine and loose leaf), kale, broccoli, onions, garlic, potatoes, green beans, squash, zucchini, cucumber, eggplant, green, purple, red and yellow bell peppers, banana peppers, jalapeno peppers, carrots, corn, celery, tomatoes, okra, lima beans, black beans, alfalfa.

Fruit: grapes, peaches, tangerines, apples, lemons, strawberries, blueberries, oranges (I’m hoping to plant cantaloupe, watermelon and pumpkins soon).

Companion Flowers: nasturtiums, marigolds, pansies.

Herbs: basil, thyme, oregano, parsley, cilantro, lemon balm, chocolate mint, lavender, dill, mint, sorrel, stevia, apple mint, rosemary.

Here’s my latest photo gallery:

Living on a farm in the city

Published on May 5, 2011

Published in Mother Earth News

5/4/2011 11:49:36 PM

By Deanna Duke

Read the original article here

Chicago urban farm Many of the people who read Mother Earth News are interested in self-sufficiency, growing their own food, making food from scratch and raising animals for meat or fiber, if space (and laws) allow. However, many of those same readers also, like myself, live in the city. We enjoy the benefits of farm life and city life, adding in the convenience of urban transportation, diversity, great restaurants and access to world class arts.

But, there are drawbacks. Legal restrictions. Neighbors that are too close that may not appreciate your activities. Lack of space to plant an orchard or raise a milk cow. The list goes on. Many of us dream of living further out to do the things we really want to do when, really, most of the things we want to do can be accomplished right in our own backyards.

Growing a substantial amount of food just means the willingness to convert a lot of your yard into food growing spaces. If you are fortunate to live in a city like Seattle that has forward thinking laws, you can raise rabbits, a half dozen chickens, a couple of dwarf dairy goats and some bees. What else do you really need?

All the other activities we think of when it comes to being self-sufficient can be done no matter where you live – cooking and heating with a wood stove, cheese making, home brewing, soap making, bread baking, canning, sewing, knitting, etc. Again, the list goes on and few things prevent you from doing them besides, perhaps, funds and the gumption to do them.

If you call yourself an urban farmer or homesteader and dream of the country, what do you wish you had or could do differently? Is your wanderlust for more space really just holding you back from creating what you really want in the space you already have?