AuthorCitizens For Health

Home/Articles Posted by Citizens For Health

Valsartan, Recalls and What You Can Do

What do child car seats, ground beef, boating equipment, car parts and consumer products have in common? They are all subject to be recalled in the United States. Maybe you have gotten a letter in the mail from the maker of your car saying that one part is being recalled, or you have heard on the news about contaminated romaine lettuce or hypertension medication being recalled by a manufacturer, but what does a recall typically entail?

As a concerned Citizen for Health and health freedom fighter, you know that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) handles recalls for food, drinks, over-the-counter medications, prescriptions, cosmetics and medical devices. Many of these products are voluntarily recalled, which means that after a hazard is determined (either by FDA investigation or company acknowledgement), the manufacturer chooses to recall the product in question on its own. Many of these recalls are, however, made after threat of legal action by the FDA or consumers. When companies do not recall products in a timely manner, affected consumers will often file lawsuits against the manufacturers, like in the case of the frequent valsartan and losartan recalls that have been happening in the United States, India and China since July 2018.

Consumer products subject to recalls include clothing, furniture, electronics, appliances, children’s toys and sports equipment. These tend to be recalled due to potential for user injury or death, flammable qualities, or defects in the product that could make the product break or become unusable. This category of recall is handled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which has a comprehensive system for handling product investigations and, if necessary, product recalls. In addition to the risk of injury or product malfunction, the CPSC also requires that products be reported if they result in the death of any child, regardless of age.

The CPSC will occasionally initiate an investigation after lawsuits have been filed over a product, but in most cases, the investigations and subsequent recalls occur after individuals or manufacturers report defects or potential dangers as they become known. Even if a manufacturer does not believe a recall is warranted, it is still legally required in the United States that the company reports any potentially harmful incidents to the CPSC. To ensure that consumers’ safety is of the utmost concern, the CPSC can fine companies who do not report potentially dangerous products up to almost $2 million U.S. dollars.

When a labeling issue occurs in any product, regardless of which category it falls into, a recall must also be initiated. Labeling issues encompass a wide range of concerns, such as mislabeled allergens for food or cosmetic packaging, incorrect directions for how to assemble furniture, or warnings on vehicle parts. While various government agencies may handle these investigations, they still often end in voluntary recalls on behalf of the manufacturer or distributor of that item.

Product recalls are not something to be taken lightly, and there are many ways that consumers can inform themselves and their loved ones so they are not harmed by a faulty product. In fact, issues with products can go unknown for long stretches of time, which is why consumers should use available online information to their benefit. We know all too well that big Pharma is concerned with getting approval for any new drug as quickly as possible, so it is up to us to be vigilant and to stay informed. Two easy ways that Americans can be mindful about new recalls are to follow the CPSC and FDA on Twitter for up-to-date information, and to sign up for the FDA Medicine Recalls newsletter on its website. Staying informed is critical for maintaining our health freedom.

Continue Reading

The rising consequences of particulate pollution

Pollution is on the forefront of many people’s minds as worries over environmental health increase and spring haze is upon us. Warmer weather can often serve as a catalyst for dangerous chemical reactions and for pollutants to be released into the atmosphere. Certain kinds of pollution are especially dangerous for human and animal health.

What is particle pollution?

Particle pollution refers to a subset of airborne pollution that’s due to particulate matter (PM) suspended in the air. PM differs in size and severity, and is generally a mixture of solid and liquid. While some PM can be seen by the naked eye — think dust, soot or smoke — the most dangerous particles are also the smallest. The danger of PM depends largely on the size of the particles and can be separated into 3 general categories.

Particles larger than 10 micrometers (µm) in diameter are of the least worry for long-lasting human health concerns, but can still irritate sensitive tissue around the eyes, nose and throat. Anything smaller than 10 µm can pose great threat to internal organs because they are too small to be expelled by our body’s defenses against foreign invaders, like sneezing, watering eyes, coughing or blinking.

asbestos fibers
Asbestos Fibers

There are two further broad distinctions in particle size: coarse particles, which range from 2.5 µm to 10 µm, and fine particles, which are anything smaller than 2.5 µm. Fine particles can be further classified into ultrafine and nanoparticles, which are smaller than 0.1 µm.

Why particle pollution is a problem

The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that 7 million people die annually as a result of polluted or substandard air quality. Pollution isn’t always the obvious cause, but it compounds existing conditions and can be the underlying cause of common killers like stroke and heart disease.

According to the WHO, 2.4 million heart disease and 1.4 million stroke related deaths per year are caused by air pollution. These numbers are only expected to increase, as the organization has also reported that 91% of people worldwide are exposed to air that does not meet the WHO’s healthy guidelines.

Particle pollution isn’t exclusive to man-made materials, as dust storms, forest fires, and pollen can also be dangerous for airways. However, shifting weather patterns due to climate change may be worsening air quality by creating natural disasters that compromise air standards. In the UK, the Department of the Environment measures outdoor air pollution on a 1 to 10 scale. Often the scale hits 10 (the worst) due to intercontinental winds that whip up dust from the Sahara Desert and distribute them as far north as Great Britain and as far west as the Caribbean Islands.

The BBC reported that these winds serve as the “tipping point” for poor air quality when coupled with emissions from road transport and residential causes. The UK is a repeat offender on substandard air quality and has been taken to the European Court of Justice three times over failure to curb air pollution.

Now, scientists are worried that the damage is so far gone that even efforts to fix these issues could have unfortunate repercussions. Professor David Stevenson at the University of Edinburgh has found that “cutting pollution could disrupt the formation of clouds which reflect heat from the sun back into space.”

“Air pollution and climate change are inextricably linked and we need to develop smart pollution control policies that take these links into account,” Stevenson went on to say in an interview with the BBC.

Common causes of air pollution

Threatening air pollution can occur both indoors and outdoors, splitting the WHO’s grand total of 7 million deaths per year into 4.2 million as a result of ambient air pollution, and 3.8 million due to indoor air pollutants.

Alarmingly, indoor pollutants may come from things we think of as unavoidable. Sources of light and cooking are among the worst offenders, as are the very materials homes may be built with. The WHO estimates that 3 billion people use polluting fuels like wood, coal, dung, and kerosene to cook their food, light their rooms and warm their homes. In developing nations especially, these are often the only ways to power homes at all.

Combustion isn’t the only cause of indoor pollution. A common concern like mold can have severe impacts on joint pain and respiratory health when allowed to get out of control. Additionally, older homes and buildings are prone to having particulate pollutants like asbestos and lead in foundational construction materials.

Outdoor pollutants are not purely limited to natural sources like dust and sand. The results of man-made industrial output are just as dangerous. Ground-level ozone is another danger to worry about, and the recipe for this toxic substance includes ingredients both man-made and natural.

Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), are both emitted by vehicles, power plants, industrial factories, chemical plants, and other man-made sources. When NOx and VOCs mix together in the air they chemically react when exposed to heat and sunlight, creating a toxic cocktail of smog known as ground-level ozone, which can have profound effects on human health.

Health effects of particle pollution

The most obvious portion of the body affected by PM is the lungs. When these fine particles are inhaled, they irritate the lungs and the body is not able to expel them safely. The WHO reported that 43% of all lung disease and lung cancer deaths can be attributed to air pollution as an underlying cause. Many of the pollutants mentioned above contribute to this disheartening statistic.

picture of lungs with asbestos cancer
Asbestos Cancer

Construction material toxins like lead and asbestos may lead to rare conditions like lead poisoning, asbestosis and mesothelioma, the latter two of which affect the lungs and have high mortality rates. Ozone pollution leads to death less often, but consistent exposure weakens the lungs, making them more susceptible to other infections or diseases.

The brain itself is also at risk from PM; 24% of stroke deaths annually are caused by air quality concerns. Now, research shows that the polluted atmosphere may be having an effect on general cognitive abilities. A study conducted by UK researchers at the University of London, King’s College London and Imperial College found that incidence of dementia increases 40% in areas of high pollution.

This frightening statistic has very little explanation, as the study authors wrote: “While toxicants from air pollution have several plausible pathways to reach the brain, how and when they may influence neurodegeneration remains speculative.”

Internal organs aren’t the only systems affected by PM. Studies have also found that polluted air can have negative effects on fetuses in utero. Researchers at Queen Mary University of London have found amounts of soot particles in the placenta, suggesting that PM is able to pass into the umbilical cord. Dr. Tobias Welte, vice president of the European Respiratory Society, commented on the results of the study to Live Science.

“Air pollution is no longer a respiratory problem, it’s a systemic problem,” Welte said. “Our hearts, brains, kidneys and lymph nodes could be virtually full of these particles. The exposure of unborn children to these particles is particularly worrying as it can affect the development of their organs.”

Particle pollution on the rise

The American Lung Association’s annual State of the Air report found that air quality levels in the nation are getting lower and more citizens are being exposed to polluted air. The report also underlined that climate change is a large contributing factor.

“Rising temperatures lead to more ozone formation and conditions that result in more frequent and intense wildfires,” read the report, “putting millions more people at risk and challenging efforts to clean up air pollution.”

The report also urged lawmakers and citizens to take action to protect air quality and American health, especially given that 43% of Americans live in areas with unhealthy ozone and PM levels. However, new regulations meant to promote industry may be doing so at the expense of air quality and health.

Regulatory rollbacks, budget slashing to the EPA and relaxed regulations on toxic materials are all to blame. The current administration plans to decrease the EPA’s budget by a third and has been rolling back previous regulations on ambient air standards.

One such new regulation is the Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) that moves farther away from a full ban on asbestos. In June of 2018, the EPA proposed the new rule, which allows asbestos-containing products no longer being manufactured to be reviewed and allowed back into production after 90 days.

While the rule itself doesn’t explicitly allow asbestos back into production, it does represent the loosening rather than the tightening of regulations. Many of the comments received during the rule’s comment window lobbied for a full ban on the mineral instead of complicated new regulations.

How can changes be made?

With the future of regulations to curb emissions murky, individual action is more important than ever to mitigate particulate pollution. These actions can be twofold: both ways to reduce actual emissions and ways to avoid high levels of pollution to elevate your own health. These steps are especially helpful during the summer, when heat levels rise.

To prevent and avoid ozone, stay indoors during hot days and avoid using any combustion-powered machines. This includes cars, lawn mowers, boats, and motorcycles. Releasing these chemicals into the hot air will result in toxic fumes. Similarly, campfires and heat powered by burning matter will release smoke particles into the air, regardless of the ambient temperature.

Common sense measures like reusing resources, reducing energy usage and water consumption, consolidating car trips and switching to energy efficient products can have quite an impact. Making the switch to clearly labeled products that are free of harmful chemicals will also help.

Educating oneself about the specifics of climate change and pollution is essential to living intentionally. As the studies above mentioned, these two factors are interrelated, and citizens can take action to inform policies by commenting on proposals and voting for candidates who align with these goals.

Bayer’s Bottom Line Mentality Harms its Customers

Bayer is a company known worldwide for its cleaning and agricultural products, medical devices, over-the-counter medications and prescription drugs. Bayer may be best known for making aspirin, but in recent years, the company has also become notorious for the ever-increasing number of court cases filed against it.

Announcing The Natural Color Coalition

natural color coalition

Powered by Citizens for Health

2018 was a great year for the fight against artificial dyes. We saw many stores ban products using them and other companies pledge to remove artificial dyes in favor of naturally derived colors. To encourage this movement CFH has launched the Natural Color Coalition to show brands there remains a growing public demand for only natural colors.

With this initiative we are trying a new, positive messaging approach. The negative side-effects of artificial dyes are well-documented and available online with a simple search. But we realized that this has been an ongoing debate throughout the food manufacturing, FDA and public opinion arenas since the 1950’s (earlier, depending on who you ask). The usual strategy – boycotts, petitions demanding action, and articles showing the negative effects – has begun to fall on deaf ears. So our new approach is to show manufacturers that there is still a growing demand for the change, but also that we now have alternatives we can purchase until they make this change. We feature those on the Good Guys pages at www.naturalcolorcoalition.com.

color me with love contest
Color Me with Love

We have also launched a Petition on Change.org to gather signatures as demonstrative proof of this movement towards using only natural colors. To support this petition further we are launching the Color Me with Love video contest which we will deliver to the top-ranking brands from the winning selection, along with the petition signatures. The contest will focus on the public making a 30- to 58-second video message “Love Letter” to their favorite product saying how much better it would be with natural color. Sticking with the positive messaging strategy all submissions must be positive, humorous, ironic or just plain funny. The Contest runs Feb 12 – March 15, 2019, and the winners will be announced March 20, 2019. First Prize is a Surface Pro 6, Second Prize is a $500 Gift Card. FOUR third prize winners will be selected and each will receive a Google Home hub. For more info: www.naturalcolorcoalition.com/contest.

color me with love

Please support these new initiatives by visiting www.naturalcolorcoalition.com. Sign the petition and enter the contest – there is no fee to enter. Our social media for this campaign also provides a good deal of useful information such as products made without artificial dyes, as well as recipes, so check out the social media channels as well.

The Bonvie Blog: Monosodium Glutamate, or MSG

Here’s the best New Year’s resolution you can make

BY LINDA BONVIE

If you made a New Year’s resolution, probably by now the enthusiasm in following this self-improvement ritual has slowly faded into the humdrum of daily life.

But I’m here to help revitalize things. It’s not too late to make one of the best New Year’s resolutions of all. In fact, this idea is one that will benefit the entire family – young, old and in-between.

I’ll cut right to the advantages: Putting this resolve into action can significantly improve your health, especially protect the youngest – and oldest – members of your family from brain damage, get some nasty carcinogens out of your diet, protect your heart and eyes, and help you keep your weight under control. Actually, that’s just the tantalizing top five of the pluses this resolution has to offer.

So, you’re probably wondering what this magic, life-altering secret of staying healthy could be? Well, here it is: Simply keep as much processed free glutamic acid out of your diet as you possibly can.

Not sure what processed free glutamic acid is? Hint — it commonly goes by the acronym “MSG,” a sort of food-additive slang to stand for toxic ingredients added to processed foods to zip up the flavor. But here’s the most frustrating part – while plenty of folks are checking food labels so they can avoid MSG, they won’t find it listed. Sure, monosodium glutamate is required by the FDA to be labeled, but this problem extends way beyond that sole ingredient to over 40 different additives that are routinely dumped into everything from infant formula, to meals for invalids, to protein drinks, to everyday foods literally ranging from soup to nuts.

Industry hype gets hyperactive

During the past year I’ve been noticing a widespread media campaign on all levels, much of which is disseminated by the “International Glutamate (dis)Information Service” that’s laser- focused on convincing you that MSG is totally harmless… and, unbelievably, even beneficial!

This propaganda, appearing on Facebook, in the news, and flowing from press releases, is stunningly similar to a campaign several years ago created and funded by the Corn Refiners Association to try and salvage the image of high fructose corn syrup. The main goal in that marketing mission was twofold: (1) present as gospel-truth “facts” about HFCS that trashed years of scientific findings as to the danger of ingesting free (unbound) fructose, and (2) make anyone who attempted to tell family or friends about the health risks of HFCS seem like a nitwit who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Thankfully, the many millions put into that effort by the CRA wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. Consumers know by now that HFCS is bad news. And food manufacturers know that consumers know.

But with MSG, the situation is a bit more tricky. The monetary stakes are higher, the products that contain processed free glutamic acid are much more numerous, and industry has the full and unbridled support of the FDA.

And it seems that when it comes to “proving” their point, anything goes.

Take, for example, a “study” that came out last year from none other than the prestigious Harvard Medical School and its affiliated hospital, the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

Apparently the goal of this absurdity was to generate cool headlines such as “Monosodium glutamate could actually be key to healthy eating.” Yep, that must have been it, as the study wasn’t much to write home about, let alone write a news story about.

It went like this: 35 women wore special glasses that tracked their eye movements as they walked around a buffet table. Half the group had eaten an MSG-spiked soup beforehand, and those women had “more focused gazes during the meal,” and chose foods with “less saturated fats.”

Of course, you could say that’s just plain silly, who would believe such drivel? But the glutamate industry (yes, there is a glutamate industry) has a lot more up its sleeve. And one thing that will help you to avoid being conned by its disinformation is to keep the following six big fat lies you’re going to hear in mind, courtesy of our friends at the Truth in Labeling Campaign:

#1: The glutamate contained in MSG is identical to the glutamate in the human body.

#2: MSG is very well researched and found to be safe.

#3: It must be safe, since the FDA has said so.

#4: MSG has been used for over a century without adverse reactions.

#5: MSG is naturally made, similar to yogurt, vinegar and wine.

#6: Monosodium glutamate occurs naturally in food.

Also remember that it’s not just “some” people who need to dodge these noxious additives. Those who suffer reactions are indeed reacting to a toxic substance, not having an allergy attack, such as a sensitive person would to nuts or milk. The effects of MSG can range from migraines, asthma, skin rashes, irritable bowel, seizures and heart irregularities such as A-fib.

And as for all those names, the aliases that processed free glutamic acid hides under, I’ve listed the top ten below. For the full story, the best place to look is to health freedom fighters, Truth in Labeling Campaign (TLC). (The folks at TLC are excited to unveil a new website this Spring and to continue to update and add to the valuable information and resources we’ve come to expect from these critical allies.)

It would be bad enough if what we were being told by industry and its shills were just half truths. But these are flat-out lies, being told for the purpose of keeping the “glutes,” as TLC calls them, doing business as usual and continuing to poison our food while telling us everything is A-OK.

As Citizens for Health President and Board Chair Jim Turner once remarked about aspartame, another neurotoxic food additive: “The brain you save may be your own.”

Top ten names of ingredients that always contain processed free glutamic acid (Courtesy of the Truth in Labeling Campaign)

  1. Autolyzed yeast
  2. Soy protein
  3. Any “hydrolyzed” protein
  4. Whey protein isolate
  5. Yeast extract
  6. Sodium and calcium caseinate
  7. Textured protein
  8. Anything containing “enzymes”
  9. Soy sauce
  10. Monosodium glutamate (E# 621)

Linda and Bill Bonvie are regular bloggers for Citizens for Health and the co-authors of Badditives: The 13 Most Harmful Food Additives in Your Diet – and How to Avoid Them.

The Bonvie Blog: Flu Vaccination

The flu vaccination: a shot in the dark that misses by a mile

By LINDA BONVIE

By now the flu-shot propaganda machine is in full swing.

The truth is we can’t go anywhere after summer folds its tent without being bombarded with a pitch to get one of these jabs.

So, should you?

Will that needle poke be the extra insurance you need to stay flu-free throughout the holiday season and the winter months ahead?

Before you run out for that shot, however, there are some things you should know – a bit of flu vaccine history that you won’t be hearing from the CDC, the CVS, your local health department and most especially Big Pharma.

To listen to CDC experts talk about it, skipping your yearly influenza vaccine is as risky as crossing the Grand Canyon on a tightrope. And if you’re pregnant, or a bit on the older side, it’s even more dangerous to go flu-shot-free!

But where, exactly, is the “proof” that this mass campaign to get everyone inoculated is keeping us healthy? That’s what a pair of professors – pro-vaccine pediatricians, no less – at the University of Rochester wanted to find out.

Drs. Eric Biondi, and Andrew Aligne (who is also the Director of the Hoekelman Center at the University), took a good long look at the record of flu vaccines over the past century. And what they found is more than enough to give you reason to pause before you roll up your sleeve.

The proof goes ‘poof’

You wouldn’t know it by the big flu-shot push that revs up every year, but the fact that there’s no real proof to support this extensive (and expensive) campaign is out there in peer-reviewed and published data… much of it straight from the CDC itself.

As Drs. Biondi and Aligne relate the facts, in 1960, for the very first time, annual flu shots were recommended by federal health authorities. That was despite having over a decade (starting in the late 1940s) of experience that hadn’t produced a shred of evidence showing that vaccinating the general public for the flu was keeping people healthy or saving lives.

That ‘flu shots for all’ mandate came on the heels of the 1957 Asian flu pandemic, in which millions of doses of vaccines were given in the U.S. – later found to have “no appreciable effect” in stemming the tide of illness or death. The theory back then was that the immunization campaign’s failure was simply a case of “too little, too late.” If more people were vaccinated in a timely way, the idea went, then the shot would surely work better.

But that plan also turned out to be a dud.flu

In 1964 the head epidemiologist at the CDC published a paper in which he “reluctantly concluded that there is little progress to be reported.” Should widespread influenza shots “be continued without better evidence” to justify the cost, he asked?

A few years later in 1968 CDC officials decided to look at the effectiveness of flu vaccines with a gold-standard, randomized double-blind trial. The goal was to find out if all these vaccines now being given out to Americans were indeed saving lives. And, as they wrote, “despite extensive use…” that promise “has never been demonstrated.”

But it was the 1976 “Swine Flu Fiasco” (as it was dubbed by The New York Times), that should have been the swan song for the widespread public acceptance of a yearly flu jab.

Not only didn’t a pandemic materialize, but the shot to prevent it appeared to trigger an epidemic of the paralyzing vaccine side effect known as Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), in which the body attacks its own nerves. (Interestingly, before Pharma would release any vials of flu vaccine that year it demanded that the feds protect drug makers against any claims of adverse reactions from the shots – what’s known today as the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (a.k.a. the “vaccine injury court”).

Another big analysis by the CDC a year later determined that flu-outbreak control had been “generally ineffective.” And in 1995 the FDA took a stab at validating all the hoopla over influenza vaccination. It concluded that there is a “paucity of randomized trials,” and of the existing research, the agency found “serious methodological flaws in many existing flu-vaccine studies.”

Okay, so that was then – the dark ages of medical knowledge. In the more recent past scientists learned how to make a better flu shot, right?

Well, apparently not.

A CDC placebo-controlled trial in 2000 couldn’t find a benefit “in most years” for a shot versus good old placebo. In 2005 the authors of a 33-season study discovered that despite the fact that shots given to seniors had quadrupled, the estimated death rate was “probably very close to what would have occurred had no vaccine been available.”

But it’s obvious that, proof or no proof, not only is this yearly ritual firmly entrenched in mainstream healthcare practices, but any professional who dares to question it is taking a big chance.

Last year, for example, Dr. Daniel Neides, then medical director and chief operating officer of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute was accused of “fear mongering” and spreading “dangerous information” when he mentioned in his blog that some flu vaccines contain mercury and formaldehyde, which can add up to a “constant toxic burden.”

Needless to say, Dr. Neides is no longer with that organization.

Of course, you could argue that even a smidgen of protection is worthwhile, but that’s another flu-shot theory that doesn’t hold water considering the risks involved, which range from agonizing shoulder pain known as SIRVA (shoulder injuries related to vaccine administration), to allergic reactions, headache, fever and nausea (the last three considered “common side effects” by the CDC).

And along with the “toxic burden” Dr. Neides referred to, you should know that there are more settlements out of the vaccine injury court for flu shots than any other inoculation, with the most reported one being for GBS.

Certainly having the flu is no walk in the park, and yes, it can result in serious, even deadly, complications in some people.

All of which is why keeping your body well-equipped to fight it with proper sleeping habits, a daily dose of vitamin D – along with other immune-boosting supplements, nutrient-dense foods, and frequent hand washing – will do more to keep you flu-free than anything Big Pharma has yet to offer up.


Linda and Bill Bonvie are regular bloggers for Citizens for Health and the co-authors of Badditives: The 13 Most Harmful Food Additives in Your Diet – and How to Avoid Them.

5G Media Advisory: Call to Substantiate Claims of “Safety”

UPDATE: Watch Senator Blumenthal’s press conference on the dangers of 5G: View it here.

As the Senator notes, despite the FCC’s assurances that 5G is “safe,” “We need evidence.” And classified evidence is NOT enough.

CFH and NISLAPP believe the available scientific evidence: The impact will be harmful. “We do not know it is safe” is very different than “It will be harmful and people need to be warned and protected.”

Media Advisory

Senator Blumenthal and Congresswoman Eshoo Press FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr to Disclose Evidence of ‘5G Safety’

Washington, D. C., December 3, 2018:  The National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy (NISLAPP) applauds Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) for pressing FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, Esq. (Link downloads PDF file) to provide documentation substantiating the Commissioner’s remarks defending ‘5G safety’.

NISLAPP seconds this request.  

Jim Turner, Esq., President of NISLAPP, says:

“NISLAPP considers it a mistake to place new high-frequency radiating antennas in local communities, in very close proximity to homes, office and schools, when no pre-market health testing at scale has been conducted on the effects of the radiation emitted, to our knowledge, and when much safer hard-wired internet access technologies are readily available. We strongly support Senator Blumenthal and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo’s request of FCC Commissioner Carr to provide the documentation evidencing the FCC’s ‘safety determination for 5G’, along with the supporting scientific citations used in making that determination.”

The formal request to Commissioner Carr requesting these documents was announced at a press conference this morning in Hartford. In the letter, (Link downloads PDF file) Blumenthal and Eshoo explained that recently, in a Senate Committee field hearing in South Dakota regarding 5G, Mayor Paul TenHaken of Sioux Falls, SD was looking for “clear direction, talking points, studies that have been done that show that there is no harm to our constituents and to the taxpayers on putting these small cells on towers close to libraries, close to schools, close to their homes.” And that Commissioner Carr responded at the time, saying, “Federal law actually says that state and local governments can’t take [radiofrequency] concerns into account given how much work has gone into this issue at the federal level…Both at the FCC and other expert health agencies in Washington, they stay very much up to speed on these issues and have reached the determination that these are safe.”

Following this exchange, Senator Blumenthal and Congresswoman Eshoo are presently calling on FCC Commissioner Carr to send the following documentation to his office:

  1. The 5G safety determination from FCC and other relevant health agencies to which Commissioner Carr referred during the field hearing.
  2. Current citations for the studies informing that safety determination.

They said his own constituents have similar concerns about 5G, and that they want to provide them with accurate information.5G

Senator Blumenthal and Congresswoman Eshoo said we “are interested in acquainting ourselves with the latest studies evaluating the health effects of high-band frequencies and modulations that would be used in 5G networks.” They noted, “Most of our current regulations regarding radiofrequency safety were adopted in 1996 and have not yet been updated for next generation equipment and devices.” They also mentioned the large U.S. government-funded study by the National Toxicology Program, published this year, using earlier generation technologies (2G and 3G), showed a link between radiofrequency radiation and cancer.

Blumenthal and Eshoo added, “Carriers will also need updated guidelines governing the authorization of devices to be used with 5G,” and “We also believe it is critical for the FCC to act on its March 27, 2013 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Inquiry to ensure all individuals, and especially those working in close proximity to the hundreds of thousands of small cell facilities to be deployed, are protected from any kind of excess radiofrequency radiation.”

The Communications Workers of America was present at the press conference, as was science writer and expert in electromagnetic fields, B. Blake Levitt. See Levitt’s remarks. (Link downloads PDF file).

The National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy considers Senator Blumenthal and Congresswoman Eshoo’s line of inquiry about the extent of safety evaluations of next generation 5G radiation to be critically important. Camilla Rees, Senior Policy Advisor to NISLAPP, says, “All Members of Congress, as well as state and local government officials, might consider asking similar questions about the new, different and dangerous fifth generation radiofrequency technologies that the telecom industry intends to deploy widely within our living environments, and about which scientists around the world are warning. (Link downloads PDF file).

International scientists in many countries are calling for a moratorium on 5G until the potential hazards are fully investigated.

Additional Warnings about Radiofrequency (RF) and 5G Health Effects from Scientists

Beatrice Golumb, MD, PhD (Link downloads PDF file), Professor of Medicine, UC San Diego

Martin Pall, PhD (Link downloads PDF file), Professor Emeritus, Washington State University

170 Review Studies on RF Biological Effects prepared by Martin Pall, PhD

NISLAPP Paper Explains the Far Better Alternative to 5G ‘Antenna Densification’

“Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks” by Timothy Schoechle, PhD: http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/wires-long-press-release/

We recommend Members of Congress and state and local government officials seriously evaluate safer alternatives to ‘antenna densification’ and the many angles (Link downloads PDF file) from which 5G distributed antennas are a very serious mistake for the United States.

Levitt – 5G Information Sites for Media (Link downloads PDF file).


Contact:

Jim Turner, Esq., President

National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy

jim@swankin-turner.com

(202) 255-8040

Camilla Rees, MBA, Senior Policy Advisor

National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy

crgr@aol.com

917-359-8450

Martin Pall, PhD, Scientific Advisor

National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy

martin_pall@wsu.edu

(503) 232-3883

Timothy Schoechle, PhD, Senior Research Fellow

National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy

timothy@schoechle.org

(303) 443-5490 (or Tues/Wed only: 303-818-8760)

 

The Bonvie Blog: Lectin

Have a happy lectin-, gluten-, additive-free Thanksgiving!

By LINDA BONVIE

Let me start by saying that consuming unadulterated food has become increasingly challenging. And as we enter the “eating season” that begins with Thanksgiving, complications can heat up at a rapid pace.

If you’re not careful, a “traditional” Thanksgiving meal can easily become a “chemical feast,” to borrow the title of CFH Chairman Jim Turner’s classic book.chemical feast

Starting with the canned cranberry sauce, which typically contains high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), to the stuffing – loaded with bad oils, MSG and more HFCS – right down to the pumpkin pie, with even more HFCS, genetically-modified ingredients and partially hydrogenated oil in the crust, most Thanksgiving spreads contain more laboratory concoctions than they contain real food.

Even the main event – the turkey – can be a chemically pickled piece of poultry.

Any “self-basting” or “deep basted” bird typically comes loaded with enough added ingredients to preserve it until next Thanksgiving!

But I’m here to make things even more complex for you. That’s right, there are other food matters you may want to consider as you do your shopping for this big day of eating – specifically the hazards of lectin.

‘Plant Predators’

In his top-selling 2017 book, The Plant Paradox, cardiologist Dr. Steven Gundry puts more food restrictions on the table with his theory that lectin, a “common and highly toxic” plant-based protein (which includes gluten), when ingested causes “warfare in our bodies.”

You know all those “healthy” fruits, veggies and grains you’ve been instructed to heap on your plate? Well, according to Dr. Gundry, they’re not “just sitting there accepting their fate as part of your dinner.” These seemingly innocent produce products are taking revenge on us, defending themselves with the use of “toxic chemicals.”

Now, Dr. Gundry isn’t against all of nature’s bounty, saying that eating certain plants is “essential for good health,” and supplies most of the vitamins, minerals and antioxidants needed to stay well. He also provides tips on how to make many fruits and veggies less “toxic” (some of which I’ll share with you in a minute), as well as selling a supplement called “Lectin Shield,” designed to block dietary lectins.

The entire idea of being lectin leery, does, of course, have its detractors. The Washington Post called it the “latest pseudoscience diet fad.”

But as a writer and researcher who has focused mainly on the man-made hazards added to foods and beverages, I know that just because something is labeled as natural and untainted by human hands, it doesn’t automatically mean it’s good for you.

And his concept that these noxious proteins are “designed by nature to protect” plants does make sense. I’m sure you’ve had the experience of eating a totally “healthy,” carefully prepared meal only to feel really crappy afterwards. Could the reason be it contained high concentrations of lectin? Maybe.

Dr. Gundry even calls humans “plant predators” – in the same category as the deer who graze in my backyard or the caterpillars who consumed every bit of my garden parsley.

To be sure, there’s a lot more to The Plant Paradox than simply crossing certain high-lectin foods off your shopping list. But if you want to give his basic theory a try, here are some tips from his book to lower lectin levels in your food:

  • Try to eliminate as many fruits and veggies as possible that contain lots of seeds, such as cucumbers, tomatoes and squash, from your diet.lectin
  • Peel your vegetables, as lectins are concentrated in the peels, and seeds of plants.
  • Only buy produce in season, at the “peak of ripeness.”
  • Ditch the whole grains and seeds with hard outer coatings, which “are designed by nature to cause digestive distress.” That includes swapping brown rice with white.

For Thanksgiving, these lectin restrictions would mean nixing the pumpkin pie, mashed potatoes, your treasured family recipes for rolls, corn muffins, the green-bean casserole, and even wild rice.

Turkey and all other poultry, according to Dr. Gundry, must be pasture-raised, which is considerably different from just being “free-range.” Grass-fed beef, bison, boar, elk and venison, can also make the grade for your feast, along with plenty of wild-caught seafood and shellfish.

If it sounds like there’s not much left to serve on the side, there’s actually quite a bit, including lots of lettuces, turnips, sea vegetables, parsnips, millet and sweet potatoes – the only potato that makes his “yes please” list.

Actually, I could see this low-lectin feast idea going viral, perhaps with Martha Stewart coming out with a recipe guide on how to prepare some of the more obscure “approved” foods – such as nopales cactus, taro root, sorghum, grouse and pheasant.

And that sounds a whole lot better than some other Thanksgiving ideas from Martha’s collection, most especially the roast capon (with fig-and-pancetta stuffing, no less) – which, put more bluntly, is a castrated rooster!

Of course there’s still a big Thanksgiving dilemma left to solve. And that’s to try and keep the dinner table conversation equally easy to digest!


Linda and Bill Bonvie are regular bloggers for Citizens for Health and the co-authors of Badditives: The 13 Most Harmful Food Additives in Your Diet – and How to Avoid Them.

The Bonvie Blog: The Labeling Trick Only the FDA Could Pull Off

The Labeling Trick Only the FDA Could Pull Off

By LINDA and BILL BONVIE

Ready or not, Halloween is coming around again.

For many, it’s a fun holiday that opens the magic portal to the holiday season. But for others, not so much!

In the UK a recent poll found that 45 percent of Brits consider trick-or-treating an “unwelcome American cultural import.”

No matter how you feel about it, however, like everything else these days Halloween comes with a wide variety of rules and restrictions. That’s right – it’s not the happy-go-lucky boo-fest of years gone by anymore.

For example:

  • In the LA suburb of Walnut, Calif., wearing a “mask or disguise on a public street” is an unlawful activity.
  • If you live in Alabama, dressing up like a minister, nun, priest or any “other member of the clergy” can land you in the county jail forking over up to $500. (So much for that flying nun costume.)
  • Trick-or-treating over the age of 12 is forbidden in Newport News, Va. And even if you’re young enough to walk the streets as a ghost or goblin, you better get home before 8 p.m. or you could be charged with a Class 4 misdemeanor.

But here’s where some rules could really make a difference, and help in your search to find treats to give out to your visiting ghouls and ghosts.

The labeling lingo that’s worse than nothinglabeling

As you probably know by now the FDA’s big makeover of the Nutrition Facts Label (or NFL) – something that had been in the works for ages – was finally rolled out a little over two years ago.

Basically, this “new and improved” method to help consumers more easily select healthy processed foods is a slap in the face to science. But the top travesty of all can be found in the section that tallies up the “sugars” content – most especially the part called “added sugars.”

In that category, every type of caloric sweetener, healthy or otherwise, is considered to be nutritionally the same. Sucrose (a.k.a. sugar of all varieties), fructose, high fructose corn syrup, molasses, maple syrup, honey, and more, are all lumped together and measured in grams on the same line.

In fact, Citizens for Health filed a petition with the FDA over four years ago asking the agency to include not only the name of the added “sugar,” but the amount of processed fructose contained in HFCS, which can range from 42 to a whopping 90 percent.

And recently, the name “glucose-fructose syrup” has been popping up on ingredient labels. What is it? Nothing more than another way to say high fructose corn syrup.

The Corn Refiners have been trying to get away with spiking the fructose content of their laboratory sweetener and changing its name for years. And it looks like they may be succeeding on both counts.

So what does this mean when it comes to picking out Halloween treats?

Well, if you go by the FDA’s fancy new labeling, it could result in not knowing the difference between what’s a good choice and an absolutely frightening one.  

So, here’s what you need to do: Skip the nutrition facts label altogether and go directly to the actual ingredients listing instead. Candy certainly isn’t a health food by any means, but there are plenty of treats on the market that won’t break the bank and contain ingredients that you can feel good about handing out to the neighborhood witches and wizards.

And remember, avoiding HFCS isn’t just something you want to do on Halloween. Time and time again research has found this laboratory sweetener is linked to high cholesterol and triglycerides, obesity, and an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes.

And that’s about as scary as it gets.


Linda and Bill Bonvie are regular bloggers for Citizens for Health and the co-authors of Badditives: The 13 Most Harmful Food Additives in Your Diet – and How to Avoid Them.