Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts

Friday, September 21, 2012

Public outcry lowers cost of Anascorp

After two scorpion stings and two ER visits in our family, we weren't very happy to see the original cost of anascorp so high. Especially for those who do not have insurance or are entirely living pay to pay check, the cost was just crazy.

Did you see the WAS there?

Yep, costs are lowering up to 80%. Since the cost of the antivenom is around $100 where it was developed, this only makes sense.

I mean, I understand economics and prices - limited use, means cost to keep it on hand, especially if it has a short shelf life.

Cost is higher to cover the cost of those who do not/cannot pay.

Cost is higher to cover the "discounts" given, especially to keep a non-profit status.

But really, this is, for some, a life or death issue.

Yay for access to more reasonable priced health care.

See also:
4 year old stung by scorpion
How much does anascorp cost
Thank G-d or the Insurance Folk

Saturday, July 21, 2012

School lunches - what's in them?

Time Heartland posted an article regarding possible removal of dairy milk from school lunches.

What's the goal with the removal? I mean, they point out many facts that I've seen from posts from my vegan friends and are definitely supported by many, but is cow's milk the least of nutritional worries in school lunches?

If potatoes, which are starchy, are classified as vegetables just as much as asparagus and zucchini, I say leave milk on the menu and work instead on say removing french fries as one of the vegetables offered.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Skin Check Reminder

Be sun smart

Living in 113* heat means that water is an important part of surviving the summer. We do not have a pool because I am not a strong swimmer and we have young kids. Pool safety, even sans pool, is important.

My 4 year old is learning to swim and being more confident in the water. I've been taking water aerobics and we plan another round of swimming. In areas where the weather is a tad more pleasurable, sun exposure is likely as intense due to the time spent outdoors.

There have been numerous reports recently about how skin cancer is prevalent and how even those who use sunblock sunscreen or a "tanning lotion" are at higher risk for skin cancer.

This week I took myself to the dermatologist. I'm in my early 30s, living in the "land of the sun" with fair skin, blue eyes and freckles. With the start of swimming lessons, I noticed a new "mole" on my back and decided enough is enough, I need a full body check. Not knowing is not worth the risk - my lovely $60 copay gave me a body check up and piece of mind for the next year.

Baby needs a cap!

Use sunscreen SPF30+


Use sunscreen with zinc oxide as the active ingredient, which is one of the "recommended" for UVA blocking (the others being chemicals mexoryl and parsol 1789 or avobenzine). 

Don't use tanning beds


Don't use the tanning bed. There are no safe tanning beds. The nurse practitioner I saw asked me about tanning bed use - I did use it infrequently as a teen and while it has been 15 years since I've used the tanning bed, I know many people (listen up family!) who do use them regularly still. Here are some facts on tanning beds (from Skincancer.org)


  • Those who make just four visits to a tanning salon per year can increase their risk for melanoma by 11 percent, and their risk for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma by 15 percent.57


  • Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is a proven human carcinogen.33 Currently tanning beds are regulated by the FDA as Class I medical devices, the same designation given elastic bandages and tongue depressors.34
  • The International Agency for Research on Cancer, an affiliate of the World Health Organization, includes ultraviolet (UV) tanning devices in its Group 1, a list of the most dangerous cancer-causing substances.35 Group 1 also includes agents such as plutonium, cigarettes, and solar UV radiation.36
  • Frequent tanners using new high-pressure sunlamps may receive as much as 12 times the annual UVA dose compared to the dose they receive from sun exposure.37
  • Ten minutes in a sunbed matches the cancer-causing effects of 10 minutes in the Mediterranean summer sun.38
  • Nearly 30 million people tan indoors in the U.S. every year39; 2.3 million of them are teens.40
  • On an average day, more than one million Americans use tanning salons.41
  • Seventy-one percent of tanning salon patrons are girls and women aged 16-29.42
  • Indoor ultraviolet (UV) tanners are 74 percent more likely to develop melanoma than those who have never tanned indoors.43
  • People who use tanning beds are 2.5 times more likely to develop squamous cell carcinoma and 1.5 times more likely to develop basal cell carcinoma.44

  • Wear Protective Clothing

    Clothing can offer protection as well from the sun. I am not a sun worshiper. I believe in the value of Vitamin D, but I also am not afraid of my freckles and white skin. I'd rather have ultra pale skin than skin cancer. There are a variety of protective clothing lines that have UV protection built in. A tightly woven cotton t-shirt will also work. 

    I came from my appointment knowing I'm okay right now. But it was a good reminder to apply sunscreen, be diligent about not being in the sun when it is "peak" time (in Phoenix it is 9 am - 6 pm, lovely) and to not only protect my skin, but also my face (wide-brimmed hat), eyes (sunglasses) and lips (use an SPF lip balm)

    Friday, June 8, 2012

    Holy Basil Giveaway

    Many people enjoy herbs for health benefits. There are many companies out there with vitamins, including bulk discounters, but I am hesitant to purchase from a big box store due to potential quality issues. I also have a difficult time coughing up for the extremely high end vitamins.

    Buy New Chapter Vitamins are right in the middle. You can buy New Chapter Vitamins Due to FDA regulations, I cannot make claims of health when giving away an item, so you are definitely free to look up information on how various herbs can help a person.Online supplements are an option for those especially in areas where health and nutrition stores are not nearby, or for parents who dread heading into a store with young kids in tow.


    The New Chapter Vitamin Difference:

    Whole Food Supplements

    We believe in nourishment, protection and health that comes from whole food, not synthetic chemical isolates.

    Organic Ingredients

    Many of our products are certified organic, sourced from nature’s bounty of organic fruits, vegetables, herbs and superfoods. 

    Validated by Science

    We rely on modern science to validate our products’ effectiveness and to seek out greater discoveries in nourishment and health.

    Devoted To Sustainability

    We’re committed to protecting and sustaining the natural world that provides for us and for future generations.

    Best Price Nutrition is hosting this giveaway for a full size pack of Holy Basil


    a Rafflecopter giveaway

    Saturday, May 19, 2012

    Save money by breastfeeding - or the costs of formula


    It is known that a family who has to pay for formula is more likely to breastfeed. However, programs like WIC, tend to make families who may otherwise breastfeed do not because they do not have to pay for the majority of formula. “For mothers of infants 6 months of age, WIC status was the strongest determinant of breastfeeding: mothers who were not enrolled in the WIC program were more than twice as likely to breastfeed at 6 months of age than mothers who participated in the WIC program.” Luckily many WIC programs are increasing breastfeeding support. (1)
    The cost of formula per day averages around $4, for “on sale” formula and 28 ounces per day, not including wastage.

    The cost of WIC programs is high. 

    For low and middle income families, the government assists in ensuring basic nutrition. For non-breastfed babies up to age 4 months, 806 ounces of formula is given to the family to purchase with coupons. For ages 4 and 5 months, 884 ounces of breastmilk substitute is given. At 6 months solids are introduced as well as 624 ounces of formula. While prices are negotiated with one “vendor” by each granting authority/state, the price is still absolutely astounding. Yes, I believe nutrition is important, but WOW, billions for WIC programs each year for formula when breastmilk is free and training more peer counselors and training of medical staff can go a long way!

    Cost of formula due to medical costs associated with not breastfeeding:



    RESULTS: If 90% of US families could comply with medical recommendations to breastfeed exclusively for 6 months, the United States would save $13 billion per year and prevent an excess 911 deaths, nearly all of which would be in infants ($10.5 billion and 741 deaths at 80% compliance). (2)
    This also doesn’t calculate the cost of lost wages and or lost productivity at work due to illnesses that are due to not breastfeeding.
    Sources:

    Wednesday, April 25, 2012

    An update to the Pfizer - Nestle deal

    The Pfizer-Nestle deal that I described on Sunday night has gone through. Nestle now has access to the 60 percent market share of Chinese babies who are not breastfed. The issue with this is that it is known that Nestle has ruthless tactics to prevent and undermine a mother's natural instinct and body. They have been known to dress up their SALES people in nurse's uniforms and introduce formula to women. Nestle will then give a twoish week supply of formula to the mom, and be on their way. Guess what... the "nurse" must  be right, formula is the way to go, right? Wrong. That two week supply will surely be enough time to pretty much dry up a woman's milk. Then what? They must go and buy formula. That mother may be in an area without access to clean water... Then what? Not only do we know that not breastfeeding increases risk to disease, but now we have babies being exposed to potential water-born illness. Then, mom can't even breastfeed baby through diarrhea... and guess what. Babies die. This is not the way to assist China in a (potential) population crisis.

    Women do not need someone to tell them they're wrong for not breastfeeding. They need to be supported so that they can breastfeed successfully. Pregnant and new moms need multi-national corporations to follow the World Health Code for Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. Nestle is the worst of the worst and now... Chinese (and other) babies will suffer because of it.

    What can we do? Support women! Bring them up! Help them find solutions and remind them that babies need and want mommy time! Dads can help with things OTHER than feeding and can bond in many different ways (including diaper changes! ha!)

    Remind  people that breastmilk is the best baby food out there... not the chemical concoctions that Nestle and other companies market as alternatives.

    The first alternative to breastfeeding is actually another woman's breastmilk, NOT formula! There are risks associated with formula use, but it isn't the end of the world, BUT women need support not Nestle taking over the world.

    Did you read all that? Check for a post related to the cheapest way to cloth diaper without doing EC

    Sunday, April 22, 2012

    Another reason Nestle Kills babies - Pfizer deal, tainted baby food

    The latest in Nestle's attempts to take over the world with their unhealth is apparent in their $11 billion deal with Pfizer. Pfizer? Yes, Pfizer, the drug company currently has the 5th corner in baby food in the world while Nestle's share of the market in China is dwindling due to tainted formula a few years back. In this "baby food" count is breast milk alternatives. So while Nestle continues to burden the world with their attempts to create a "second view" on the necessity of breastmilk, they are buying back some customers with this potential deal. Nestle already has top shares in the breastmilk alternative business... This deal will only increase the marketing that Nestle does that is clearly against the World Health Organization ( WHO ) Code for marketing of breastmilk alternatives. Nestle already has 17 percent share of the $27 billion (yes BILLION) market... do we really need an increased market for the unhealth brand?

    I just love this quote at the bottom of the Bloomberg article: "Global sales of baby-food products are likely to gain 6 percent a year from 2011 to 2016, helped by low private-label penetration and the importance of infant nutrition to consumers, according to Euromonitor." Lovely, right?! Importance of infant nutrition would be to get more support for women to breastfeed for 6 months exclusively and 12-24 months with outside food. That would save lives. That would bring up nutrition in infants.


    If you're interested in helping babies get the right nutrition, become a member of your local La Leche League. Mother to mother support really works.

    Nestle kills babies and doesn't care what tactics they need to use. Boycott Nestle, protect baby's health.

    Let people know you care about this deal and its affect on babies, share this post or another like it!

    See Also: Breastmilk Recall, Nope its Nestle

    Friday, April 13, 2012

    Giveaway and Review: Copy-Kids Eat your Fruits and Vegetables

    Peer pressure works. We know this, the wonderful people behind Copy-Kids eat fruits and veggies have come up with a "duh why didn't I think of that" concept - kids watching kids eat veggies... cause kids to eat veggies.

    I will first disclose that YES, my kids do eat veggies. But, my almost 2 year old has become more picky each day and is full of the word, "no." When I opened up the movie and saw that it was basically 12 sessions (each 7 minutes) of watching kids eat various veggies, I thought there was no way my 4 year old would last - after all, she had just requested to watch a different show. However, once I put it on, both of my kids watched the show... AND ate vegetables. Without saying anything, I put a bowl of raw carrots and broccoli in a bowl. The first session was kids eating peppers. My daughter was eating broccoli. I found a bell pepper, sliced it up, put it in the bowl... both kids went for the pepper. Soon I had to bring out another bowl for more veggies. By the second chapter, my 4 year old was fully engrossed, asking questions about the kids (mostly how old they were), and requesting various fruits and veggies to watch (and then eat). My son was also interested and ate more than his share of snack!

    I'd say this was a hit. Subliminal messaging for a non-veggie eater or just fun alternative to cartoons if mom needs a few minutes to say... wipe up a mess or fold some laundry... No guilt in this, right!

    Eat your: Apples – Avocado – Banana – Bell Pepper – Blueberries – Broccoli – Carrots – Cucumber – Orange – Raspberries – Strawberries – Tomato

    After the kids watched 10 out of the 12, I went to the extras and was happy to see an interview with Dr. Jay Gordon, confirming what we know - kids need veggies to grow strong and not only do WE need to be role models, but we also need to start it young and be consistent.

    See a trailer here and know that if you don't win the giveaway below... You can order your own with confidence!

    Awards:

    Dr. Toy: http://www.drtoy.com/product-view/?productid=119

    MACT: http://www.award-winning-healthy-child-products.com/2012/03/19/copy-kids-wins-the-prestigious-mact-excellence-award/




    Disclosure Statement: The views here are my own. While I was given a free copy of the DVD to review and one to use as a giveaway, it in no way influenced my opinion or views posted here.

    Tuesday, March 27, 2012

    CDC or WHO Growth Scales - Watch your baby not the scale

    Watch your baby, not the scale
    Watch your baby, not other babies
    Watch your baby, not some blog :)

    Really moms, please know that every baby is different. If you are worried about your baby's development, than likely most of this post doesn't apply to you. But for most of us, our babies are all individually developing on their own scale and to think of percentiles too much, especially when most pediatricians are using the extremely out-dated and (especially for breastfed babies) irrelevant scales created by the CDC.

    My two "underweight" kids. Both thriving. Both breastfed. Both born of a short mom and a thin dad of East Asian descent. Because you know... genetics matter....


    Why is this? Perhaps because even the CDC recommends using the WHO forms. They recommend this update because:
    "Healthy breastfed infants typically gain weight faster than formula-fed infants in the first few months of life but then gain weight more slowly for the remainder of infancy (25,26). Therefore, in the first few months of life, WHO curves show a faster rate of weight gain than the CDC charts for boys and girls (Figures 2 and 3). Use of the WHO charts in the United States might lead to an increase in the misperception of poor growth at this age." (CDC)

    So basically today's overweight (mostly) white Americans adults were the formula (fattened) babies we are comparing our (increasingly) breastfed babies, many of whom aren't white.


    Simplified their reasoning includes:
    • The WHO standards establish growth of the breastfed infant as the norm for growth.
      Breastfeeding is the recommended standard for infant feeding. The WHO charts reflect growth patterns among children who were predominantly breastfed for at least 4 months and still breastfeeding at 12 months.
    • The WHO standards provide a better description of physiological growth in infancy.
      Clinicians often use the CDC growth charts as standards on how young children should grow. However the CDC growth charts are references; they identify how typical children in the US did grow during a specific time period. Typical growth patterns may not be ideal growth patterns. The WHO growth charts are standards; they identify how children should grow when provided optimal conditions.
    • The WHO standards are based on a high-quality study designed explicitly for creating growth charts.
      The WHO standards were constructed using longitudinal length and weight data measured at frequent intervals. For the CDC growth charts, weight data were not available between birth and 3 months of age and the sample sizes were small for sex and age groups during the first 6 months of age.


    From the CDC: "The curves were anchored at birth using national birth weight data obtained from U.S. birth certificates from 1968--1980 and 1985--1994 and birth length data from Wisconsin and Missouri birth certificates (the only states with these data available on birth certificates) from 1989--1995"

    Further, the WHO uses more standard deviations of normal/average. Thus, they have a line for 3 percent and 97 percent... rather than just "below 5th" percentile.

    Next time you visit your pediatrician, ask if they're using the CDC or WHO scale for your breastfed baby. If they're using CDC, ask them why they haven't updated to what is relevant to your baby.

    And if you are breastfeeding and your baby is thriving and keeping on a decent growth path (not crossing "two lines" on the correct scale... and your pediatrician asks you to supplement (or stop breastfeeding) ask these questions:

    • If my child was at the 95th (90th, basically opposite of the percentile they're indicating) would you recommend I put my infant on a diet?
    • Can I weigh baby pre and post feeding to see how much baby is getting?
    • (Especially in young babies) Can you check my baby for a tongue tie?
    • What percent of infants are breastfed to 6 and 12 months here (American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation)? 24 months (WHO recommendation)?
    • Do you mind if I breastfeed here?
    • Is there a reason you don't have a breastfeeding-friendly waiting area with an area for moms to breastfeed?
    • Do you enjoy causing mommy guilt and paranoia?
    For the WHO and CDC growth charts directly, click here.

    For free breastfeeding support, advice and possibly great friendships, find your local Le Leche League.

    Women need support in breastfeeding, not criticism of what isn't working. Find that help and get to where you need to be so that you're comfortable with where you are in you and your baby/toddler/child's relationship.

    Have confidence! According to a study in Sweden, 99 percent of women can successfully breastfeed. There are some medical conditions that can affect you, but reach out for support and know that you can give the wonderful gift of human milk to your baby/infant/toddler.


    CDC= Centers for Disease Control
    WHO= World Health Organization



     The Baby Book: 
     

    Friday, February 11, 2011

    Alert, Alert! Measles is encroaching...

    Ask around about measles and most will either indicate it is something extremely scary or something that they aren't at all worried about. Not all know what measles actually is and how the disease is spread. I'm by no means an expert but I like to research. This is written not as any sort of advice, especially for those who may face measles on a more regular basis than those of us in the US.

    With a confirmed case of measles in 'my' city, and children not vaccinated for the disease, I decided to double check some facts. According to the World Health Organization, measles is a very contagious disease "transmitted via droplets from the nose, mouth or throat of infected persons. Initial symptoms, which usually appear 8–12 days after infection, include high fever, runny nose, bloodshot eyes, and tiny white spots on the inside of the mouth. Several days later, a rash develops, starting on the face and upper neck and gradually spreading downwards."

    Doesn't sound that bad, really, right? Of course no one really wants to get sick, and no parent wants their child to suffer.

    Plus, with any disease there are potential complications. Measles has them as well (encephalitis is one and that can and even cause death (.3 percent *yes, .3, as in 3 per 1000, in the developed world, according to the always *reliable* wikipedia). One thing the WHO does not stress is how many diseases, including Measles, can be circumvented for many in the "developed" world, through sanitation, proper nutrition, and if the mother has immunity, breastfeeding. Young children/babies have immunity from their mother until around a year and a half from being in the womb.

    There have been "recent" outbreaks of the disease in the US, but not all have been among unvaccinated individuals. According to research, dose of MMR vaccine produces immunity to measles (95–98%), mumps (97%), and rubella (95%). The second dose of MMR is intended to produce immunity in those who did not respond to the first dose, but a very small percentage of people may not be protected even after a second dose.

    For those who choose to vaccinate, know that your child (and you) still can get measles, so still be diligent about washing up and eating properly. Also, I won't stress it again in this post... breastfeed if you can, especially if you are immune:

    From the CDC: Why is MMR vaccine given after the first birthday?

    "Most infants born in the United States will receive passive protection against measles, mumps, and rubella in the form of antibodies from their mothers. These antibodies can destroy the vaccine virus if they are present when the vaccine is given and, thus, can cause the vaccine to be ineffective. By 12 months of age, almost all infants have lost this passive protection."

    For measles, it is important to have adequate Vitamin A. Vitamin A is found in milk fats (look for organic cow's milk, raw if you can get it and you trust your source). It is also readily available in many fresh fruits, such as cantaloupe and chard.

    A few random posts from the internet, because we can trust everything we read :)

    What side effects have been reported with this vaccine?
    Fever is the most common side effect, occurring in 5%–15% of vaccine recipients. About 5% of people develop a mild rash. When they occur, fever and rash usually appear 7–12 days after vaccination. About 25% of adult women receiving MMR vaccine develop temporary joint pain, a symptom related to the rubella component of the combined vaccine. Joint pain only occurs in women who are not immune to rubella at the time of vaccination. MMR vaccine may cause thrombocytopenia (low platelet count) at the rate of about 1 case per 30,000–40,000 vaccinated people. Cases are almost always temporary and benign. More severe reactions, including allergic reactions, are rare. Other severe problems (e.g., deafness, permanent brain damage) occur so rarely that experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not.

    Can the live virus in the vaccine cause measles, mumps, and/or rubella?
    Because the measles, mumps, and rubella viruses in the MMR vaccine are weak versions of the disease viruses, they may cause a very mild case of the disease they were designed to prevent; however, it is usually much milder than the natural disease and is referred to as an adverse reaction to the vaccine.

    Here's a nice link regarding keeping healthy with the use of herbs.

    And you, what are you doing or not doing? Is your daily life impacted at all?

    Tuesday, September 7, 2010

    Genetically modified food - take a stance against GM salmon

    In a short twelve days, the FDA will be approving the first genetically engineered animal. This new salmon gets twice as big on half the amount of food as the non-engineered fish. However, we can make a change, please sign the below petition and let the USDA and FDA know that genetically engineered animals, especially for consumption, is not what we want!

    http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4693

    Through gene splicing, companies and corporations are finding innumerable ways to create new organisms, ones that sometimes “look” natural, and other times are complete breeding that “nature” would not be able to do on its own. In the case of the GE salmon, we have salmon whose DNA has been altered to grow quicker with less food required. These “farmed” atlantic salmon are then sent to your plate (assuming you eat fish, farmed fish at that), however, what is to prevent these farmed fish from entering the ecosystem? How do we know that these fish are safe to eat? How do we know that other animals that eat salmon won’t see harm from this, because how likely is it that these farmed salmon will never, ever make it into the eco system?

    USDA on genetically engineered animals: http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/default.htm

    Unfortunately, the FDA’s oversight is not one that is without lobbying from the companies and corporations for which it regulates. Not only is the lobbying being done “in the open” but also without bias since many of the FDA’s leaders are former executives of and lobbyists for the companies the FDA is supposed to be regulating. Here is the FDA’s take as to their job regarding GMOs: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm115032.htm

    While the FDA indicates that they believe GEs/GMOs are classified as “generally safe,” I’m not one to take that to mean “without any harm… EVER.” Are you? Here is their “balanced” idea as to what salmon is and GE: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/ucm222635.htm



    So what are the issues surrounding genetically engineered food?

    According to Safefood.org (http://www.safe-food.org/-issue/scientists.html) we do not know how GE food affects the eco-system long-term. Scientists do not agree with the long-term effects, much less the short-term effects.

    This site links to more issues with GEs:

    http://www.lib.cau.edu.cn/oldtsg/zjy/a012.pdf

    In addition, there is some concern regarding food allergies and genetic engineering. Buchanan (2001), a member of the National Academy of Sciences, points to past errors in genetic engineering, “one wonders why the allergy issue was not raised earlier— for example, in the countless plant breeding programs since World War II—that significantly have not converted nonallergenic into allergenic foods” (p. 5). We have also have had issues with the use of GE to create MORE Of something found in nature, not generally found world-wide and then due to the overexposure, more people are found to be allergic. “The introduction of kiwi, a relatively obscure fruit, led to the development of a new allergy in the general population of the developed world” (Buchanan, p. 5). In his paper, Buchanan points to changes in how GE is used, rather than not using it, or, using more GE to create “hyperallergenic” foods. For me, I don’t believe the answer is more GE, of course. It is about creating links to finding food closer to the source, promoting more backyard, patio, and local food, but I digress… Also, if, for example, a peanut gene is introduced to a tomato gene, we have a tomato, which isn’t labeled otherwise under current requirements. However, what happens to someone allergic to peanuts? When do we find out if this causes an allergic reaction and how will that individual ever know that it was the tomato that set his allergies flaring?

    Genetic engineering disrupts how nature creates and recreates life.

    What are the issues with genetically engineered animals?

    First, like all GE foods, COMPANIES supply the safety information to the FDA. It is not tested independently to indicate whether or not GE is okay for human consumption.



    Second, these animals are no longer growing normally, and, perhaps like cows given hormones to produce more milk, there could be issues with the “unnatural-ness” of the growth. Of course, Monsanto wants us to continue to believe that cows being injected with recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBST/rGBH) are, like the label says there aren’t real differences between the milk produced by the cows not injected… but can we really believe that, considering the marketing dollars that Monsanto has spent to prevent dairies from advertising the fact that they choose not to use their hormones in their cows? Then, why, is rBST banned in Japan, Canada and the European Union? Why are we seeing an increase in cancer because of rGBH (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1567480/pdf/envhper00408-0012b.pdf) and that there are NO CLEAR BENEFITS TO CONSUMERS for use of rGBH/rBST. Again, I digress…



    The issue at hand is that genetically modified means that we believe that nature’s ability to reproduce is seen as inadequate, and science is better at this.

    What will happen to the natural fish? According to “A Purdue University study using a computer model, widely criticized by the biotechnology industry, showed that if 60 transgenic fish bred in a population of 60,000 wild fish, the wild fish would be extinct in 40 generations” (McClatchy DC, 2010).

    Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/11/97277/fda-nears-approval-of-genetically.html#ixzz0ysaxoxCZ



    Here are links to finding NON-GE (non-GMO) foods:

    http://truefoodnow.org/shoppers-guide/ (available for your i-phone!)

    http://www.safe-food.org/-industry/certification.html

    And some more information on GMOs/GEs:

    http://www.thetruthaboutgmos.com/

    http://www.purefood.org/GEFacts.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food Wiki link on GEs

    http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/science/gene-env/index.cfm NIH’s links to Gene-Environment issues… While I’m sure politics are involved, even they see risks to various environment and our health…


    See also: How did your senator vote (6/21/2012) on GMO labeling