Eating Antibiotic-Fed Chicken Leading to Bladder Infection Spike

Natural Society
Lisa Garber

We shouldn’t need much more reason to avoid antibiotic-fed chicken than the abuse and neglect they suffer in cages and “free range” facilities. But in case anyone still has second thoughts, we can safely put them to rest now that conventionally-raised chickens have been linked to urinary tract infections in people. Eating the antibiotic-fed chicken can especially lead to a urinary tract infection in women.

Urinary Tract Infection in Women and Chickens in Slaughterhouses with E. Coli

A group of researchers—in the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia—have found genetic similarities between E. coli from slaughterhouse animals, especially chickens, and the bacteria causing a urinary tract infection in women.

Journalist Maryn McKenna said on NPR that:

“The strains of E. coli that they have been tracking [in slaughtered chickens and turkeys] happen to be the kind that leave the gut to create infections elsewhere in the body. Specifically they are the strains responsible for urinary tract infections, which in the US, occur up to eight million times per year.”

The researchers’ findings coincide with a recorded change of a urinary tract infection in women resistant to standard treatment in the past decade.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention found the evidence so compelling as to report on 12 July, “ExPEC [Extraintestinal Pathogenic E. coli] transmission from food animals could be responsible for human infections, and chickens are the most probable reservoir.”

Conflicts of Interest

Meanwhile, the National Chicken Council—a pro-poultry industry lobby—retorts that chickens fed antibiotics are not the source of E. coli and that antibiotics in their feed has no effect on people who eat them. (The conflict of interest here hardly needs to be pointed out.)

According to the Food and Drug Administration, 80 percent of antibiotics sold in the US is administered to livestock, not people. (Ask the financially invested Animal Health Institute, though, and you’ll get a mere 28 percent.) Meanwhile, the FDA—bending to industrial pressure—has done “shockingly little” to combat the widespread and abused implementation of antibiotics in animal feed. Judge Theodore H. Katz ordered the FDA back in June to get its act together rather than ignore scientific evidence and citizen petitions. The future of antibiotics in livestock—and the effects on omnivorous humans—remains hazy.

Media Continues Skin Cancer Scare by Vilifying Natural Sunlight, Vitamin D

Activist Post

 What is one of the biggest threats to health today according to the mainstream media? It’s not the fact that mercury is present in a wide majority of the processed food supply, or even the fact that excessive amounts of radioactive waste is now admitted to have heavily contaminated the Pacific Ocean.

No, the number one villain according to the mainstream media is natural sunlight — the very same sunlight that generates vitamin D upon coming into contact with your skin.

Vitamin D has been found to slash your risk of cancer, aid in fat loss, beat fluoride in cavity prevention, and much more. Nonetheless, it appears that the substance is quite threatening as far as the media is concerned.

The FDA continues to announce the effectiveness of sunscreen, urging consumers to get higher SPF level products — many of which contain cancer-causing chemicals that are of much greater threat than natural sunlight. In addition, sunscreen completely blocks the production of vitamin D. Is it any wonder why there has been a resurgence of the rickets?

Sun exposure, it seems, is something that is quite deadly according to the press. According to many ‘experts’ like Dr. Robin Ashinoff, chief of dermatologic and cosmetic surgery at Hackensack University Medical Center, it is important to ‘shield yourself as much as possible’ from the sun.

In fact, the doctor states that going outside with sunscreen is ‘almost as bad’ as going out without sunscreen. Surging up fear among concerned mothers worldwide (who will not allow their children out of the house without slathering them up with sunscreen and therefore causing serious childhood development problems), the doctor states:

Wearing sunscreen and then deliberately going out in the sun is almost as [bad] as going out with no sunscreen at all. You don’t get burned, but the UV rays are still getting into your skin. Sunscreen is important, but you should also wear the right clothing and shield yourself as much as possible from direct sun exposure.

Ashinoff goes on to say that when it comes to sunscreen, you should get the “highest number” you can — particularly anything above 50 SPF. Essentially, the sun is being propagated as carcinogenic threat to the entire population.

Meanwhile, the real threats lie in the sunscreen formula itself – lending reason as to why sunscreen causes cancer. Oxybenzone and other vague mystery chemicals are commonly placed in many brand-name sunscreens, with many such chemicals yet to be proven as safe to use at all. About 8 percent of all sunscreens have been quality tested by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) to be both safe and effective for the intended use, whereas the other 92 percent contain at least one (if not many more) of the ingredients designated as detrimental for human use.

FDA Targets Nanoparticles in Food, Appliances Over Health Risks

Natural Society

Although not known by many people, a number of companies and manufacturers are actually using tiny, engineered particles in consumer products, food, and even clothing. These particles are called nanoparticles, which can cross the blood-brain barrier and cause potential bodily harm. Due to the questionable safety of nanoparticles, regulators are proposing that any company or manufacturer that wants to use nanoparticles in packaging has to prove products are safe through additional testing.

Nanoparticles Usage in Food to Undergo Additional Scrutiny
According to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN), over 1,300 manufacturer nanotechnology-enabled products are in the global commercial marketplace. Nanoparticles can be found in car batteries, appliances, aluminum foil, non-stick cookware, and is especially present in health and fitness items. The Food and Drug Administration, though, has recently issued new trial guidelines for nanoparticle users.

“At this point, in terms of the science, we think it’s likely the exemption does not apply and we would encourage folks to come in and talk to us…This is an emerging, evolving technology and we’re trying to get ahead of the curb to ensure the ingredients and substances are safe,” said Dennis Keefe, director of FDA’s office of food additive safety.

Nanotechnology is much like organism-based biotechnology, where even supporters of the technologies know there needs to be more long term testing to determine safety. Like genetically modified foods, nanoparticles are being warned against solely based on the lack of thorough safety (in addition to the known complications). Similarly, nanotechnology is believed by some to be the ‘next industrial revolution’, but like genetically modified foods, it has never been proven totally safe for use or consumption.

One study published in the journal Nature titled “Oral exposure to polystyrene nanoparticles affects iron absorption” found that intestinal changes affecting iron absorption occur due to polystyrene nanoparticles. They also expect to see an alteration in absorption of calcium, copper, zinc, and vitamins A, D, E, and K. Another study conducted in 2004 found that nanoparticles cause brain damage in fish and other aquatic species.

The FDA will take comments on the proposal for 90 days, but there is no deadline for the finalization of the documents.

Fast Food America: Hospitals Serving Up McDonald’s to Patients

Natural Society

It is no surprise that fast food is extremely unhealthy. On one level, the processed junk food lacks essential vitamins and nutrients, while they are also concocted with numerous health-hazardous substances and chemicals which should not be found in food — let alone be eaten. Knowing this information, it is no wonder why you should avoid fast food at all costs. It is safe to say that no healthy individuals would or should be consuming fast food, and certainly no sick individuals who are depleted of nutrients (as a result of avoiding real food) should be consuming it either. So what in the world are fast food chains like McDonald’s doing in places like hospital cafeterias?

One common pun states that if you want to get sick you should go to a hospital, but the fact that fast food resides in these ‘health’ institutions lends even more truth to the humorous statement. It turns out that some hospitals, such as a hospital in Des Moines, think nothing of the fast food placement. Since 1988, the Des Moines hospital has been blessed by a McDonald’s fast food restaurant, and management seems to want no change.

As expected, the hospital has undergone much scrutiny for its decision to host a McDonald’s in its institution, with some of the disapproval coming from nation-wide junk food critic Corporate Accountability International. Asking the hospital to shut down the restaurant, the group said:

“Your hospital is being used as part of McDonald’s comprehensive marketing strategy, a strategy that is clearly inconsistent with your goals as a health institution”.

In response, hospital management said:

“[McDonald’s is] an alternative to visitors and family members to dine in a familiar environment that can be a comfort, particularly for children, during stressful times. McDonald’s offers a variety of choices, including healthy foods such as salads, and provides nutrition information for its patrons”.

McDonald’s salads, often pushed as a healthier alternative as portrayed above, contain two ingredients known as cilantro lime glaze and orange glaze. Within the glaze lies propylene glycol — a chemical that is not legal to use in cat food because its safety has not yet been proven to be safe. In addition, propylene glycol is also used ”as the killing and preserving agent in pitfall traps, usually used to capture ground beetles.” The salads also contain two ingredients that divulge the presence of MSG: disodium inosinate, and disodium guanylate.

It’s not all white: The cocktail of up to 20 chemicals in a glass of milk

Daily Mail, June 7, 2011

A glass of milk can contain a cocktail of up to 20 painkillers, antibiotics and growth hormones, scientists have shown.

Using a highly sensitive test, they found a host of chemicals used to treat illnesses in animals and people in samples of cow, goat and human breast milk.

The Spanish-Moroccan team analysed 20 samples of cow’s milk bought in Spain and Morocco, along with samples of goat and breast milk.

Their breakdown, published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, revealed that cow’s milk contained traces of anti-inflammatory drugs niflumic acid, mefenamic acid and ketoprofen – commonly used as painkillers in animals and people.

Full story

Utter Deception In The Food We Eat

American Chronicle, Apr. 25, 2011

For some time now most of food that we buy in grocery stores chances are that food purchased has been altered in some way or other. I for one don’t relish the idea of eating genetically altered or modified food of any sort but probably we are all eating them anyway.

Genetically modified seeds that are engineered in laboratories all over the world have infiltrated into most of the crops like corn, soy, rice and wheat which make up a good percentage of much of the food we eat. More than 90% of the corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United States have been genetically modified to resist pesticides or insects.

The biggest issue is that our government and the large biotech corporations have purposely withheld vital information concerning the dangers of genetically modified foods from the mainstream media and outside of the public’s awareness.

Full story