Then my own unbiased material

http://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq.html

Antibiotic Resistance and Food Safety
New! Antibiotic Use in Food Producing Animals: Tracking and Reducing the Public Health Impact Antimicrobial resistance is one of our most serious health threats. Infections from resistant bacteria are now too common, and some pathogens have even become resistant to multiple types or classes of antibiotics (antimicrobials used to treat bacterial infections). Antibiotic resistant infections can also come from the food we eat. The germs that contaminate food can be resistant because of the use of antibiotics in people and in food animals. We can prevent many of these infections with careful antibiotic use and by keeping Salmonella, and other bacteria out of the food we eat. Recent outbreaks in 2011, 2011-2012, and 2013 of multi-resistant Salmonella traced to ground beef and poultry show how animal and human health are linked.

http://www.cdc.gov/narms/animals.html

Antibiotic Use in Food-Producing Animals Tracking and Reducing the Public Health Impact Scientists around the world have provided strong evidence that antibiotic use in food-producing animals can have a negative impact on public health. More Antibiotics must be used judiciously in humans and animals because both uses contribute to the emergence, persistence, and spread of resistant bacteria. Resistant bacteria in food-producing animals are of particular concern. Food animals serve as a reservoir of resistant pathogens and resistance mechanisms that can directly or indirectly result in antibiotic resistant infections in humans. For example, resistant bacteria may be transmitted to humans through the foods we eat. Some bacteria have become resistant to more than one type of antibiotic, which makes it more difficult to treat the infections they cause. Preserving the effectiveness of antibiotic drugs is vital to protecting human and animal health. This website discusses: The public health impact of antibiotic use in food-producing animals. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria that cause human illness and are transmitted commonly by food. What CDC is doing to prevent antibiotic resistance in infections transmitted commonly by food.

http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/index.html

Report 2013 This report, Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013 gives a first-ever snapshot of the burden and threats posed by the antibiotic-resistant germs having the most impact on human health.
Each year in the United States, at least 2 million people become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and at least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result of these infections. Many more people die from other conditions that were complicated by an antibiotic-resistant infection.
Antibiotic-resistant infections can happen anywhere. Data show that most happen in the general community; however, most deaths related to antibiotic resistance happen in healthcare settings such as hospitals and nursing homes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/puberty-before-age-10-a-new-normal.html?pagewanted=all

For many parents of early-developing girls, “normal” is a crazy-making word, especially when uttered by a doctor; it implies that the patient, or patient’s mother, should quit being neurotic and accept that not much can be done. Allomong listened intently. He nodded and took notes, asking Tracee detailed questions about her birth-control history and validating her worst fears by mentioning the “extremely high levels” of estrogen-mimicking chemicals in the food and water supply. After about 20 minutes he asked Ainsley to lie on a table. There he performed a lengthy physical exam that involved testing the strength in Ainsley’s arms and legs while she held small glass vials filled with compounds like cortisol, estrogen and sugar. (Kinesiologists believe that weak muscles indicate illness, and that a patient’s muscles will test as weaker when he or she is holding a substance that contributes to health problems.)
Finally, he asked Ainsley to sit up. “It doesn’t test like it’s her own estrogens,” Allomong reported to Tracee, meaning he didn’t think Ainsley’s ovaries were producing too many hormones on their own. “I think it’s xeno-estrogens, from the environment,” he explained. “And I think it’s stress and insulin and sugar.”
In the late 1980s, Marcia Herman-Giddens, then a physician’s associate in the pediatric department of the Duke University Medical Center, started noticing that an awful lot of 8- and 9-year-olds in her clinic had sprouted pubic hair and breasts. The medical wisdom, at that time, based on a landmark 1960 study of institutionalized British children, was that puberty began, on average, for girls at age 11. But that was not what Herman-Giddens was seeing. So she started collecting data, eventually leading a study with the American Academy of Pediatrics that sampled 17,000 girls, finding that among white girls, the average age of breast budding was 9.96. Among black girls, it was 8.87.
When Herman-Giddens published these numbers, in 1997 in Pediatrics, she set off a social and endocrinological firestorm. “I had no idea it would be so huge,” Herman-Giddens told me recently. “The Lolita syndrome” — the prurient fascination with the sexuality of young girls — “created a lot of emotional interest. As a feminist, I wish it didn’t.” Along with medical professionals, mothers, worried about their daughters, flocked to Herman-Giddens’s slide shows, gasping as she flashed images of possible culprits: obesity, processed foods, plastics.
Meanwhile, doctors wrote letters to journals criticizing the sample in Herman-Giddens’s study. (She collected data from girls at physicians’ offices, leaving her open to the accusation that it wasn’t random.) Was the age of puberty really dropping? Parents said yes. Leading pediatric endocrinologists said no. The stalemate lasted a dozen years. Then in August 2010, the conflict seemed to resolve. Well-respected researchers at three big institutions — Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, Kaiser Permanente of Northern California and Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York — published another study in Pediatrics, finding that by age 7, 10 percent of white girls, 23 percent of black girls, 15 percent of Hispanic girls and 2 percent of Asian girls had started developing breasts.
Now most researchers seem to agree on one thing: Breast budding in girls is starting earlier. The debate has shifted to what this means. Puberty, in girls, involves three events: the growth of breasts, the growth of pubic hair and a first period. Typically the changes unfold in that order, and the proc­ess takes about two years. But the data show a confounding pattern. While studies have shown that the average age of breast budding has fallen significantly since the 1970s, the average age of first period, or menarche, has remained fairly constant, dropping to only 12.5 from 12.8 years. Why would puberty be starting earlier yet ending more or less at the same time?
To endocrinologists, girls who go through puberty early fall into two camps: girls with diagnosable disorders like central precocious puberty, and girls who simply develop on the early side of the normal curve. But the line between the groups is blurring. “There used to be a discrete gap between normal and abnormal, and there isn’t anymore,” Louise Green­span, a pediatric endocrinologist and co-author of the August 2010 Pediatrics paper, told me one morning in her office at Kaiser Permanente in San Francisco. Among the few tools available to help distinguish between so-called “normal” and “precocious” puberty are bone-age X-rays. To illustrate how they work, Greenspan pulled out a beautiful old book, Greulich and Pyle’s “Radiographic Atlas of Skeletal Development of the Hand and Wrist,” a standard text for pediatric endocrinologists. Each page showed an X-ray of a hand illustrating “bone age.” The smallest hand was from a newborn baby, the oldest from an adult female. “When a baby is born, there’s all this cartilage,” Greenspan said, pointing to large black gaps surrounding an array of delicate white bones. As the body grows, the pattern of black and white changes. The white bones lengthen, and the black interstices between them, some of which is cartilage, shrink. This process stops at the end of puberty, when the growth plates fuse.
One main risk for girls with true precocious puberty is advanced bone age. Puberty includes a final growth spurt, after which girls mostly stop growing. If that growth spurt starts too early in life, it ends at an early age too, meaning a child will have fewer growing years total. A girl who has her first period at age 10 will stop growing younger and end up shorter than a genetically identical girl who gets her first period at age 13.
That morning one of Greenspan’s patients was a 6½-year-old girl with a bone age of 9. She was the tallest girl in her class at school. She started growing pubic hair at age 4. No one thought her growth curve was normal, not even her doctors. (Eight used to be the age cutoff for normal pubic-hair growth in girls; now it’s as early as 7.) For this girl, Greenspan prescribed a once-a-month shot of the hormone Leuprolide, to halt puberty’s progress. The girl hated the shot. Yet nobody second-guessed the treatment plan. The mismatch between her sexual maturation and her age — and the discomfort that created, for everybody — was just too great.
So why are so many girls with no medical disorder growing breasts early? Doctors don’t know exactly why, but they have identified several contributing factors.
Girls who are overweight are more likely to enter puberty early than thinner girls, and the ties between obesity and puberty start at a very young age. As Emily Walvoord of the Indiana University School of Medicine points out in her paper “The Timing of Puberty: Is It Changing? Does It Matter?” body-mass index and pubertal timing are associated at age 5, age 3, even age 9 months. This fact has shifted pediatric endocrinologists away from what used to be known as the critical-weight theory of puberty — the idea that once a girl’s body reaches a certain mass, puberty inevitably starts — to a critical-fat theory of puberty. Researchers now believe that fat tissue, not poundage, sets off a feedback loop that can cause a body to mature. As Robert Lustig, a professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco’s Benioff Children’s Hospital, explains, fatter girls have higher levels of the hormone leptin, which can lead to early puberty, which leads to higher estrogen levels, which leads to greater insulin resistance, causing girls to have yet more fat tissue, more leptin and more estrogen, the cycle feeding on itself, until their bodies physically mature.
In addition, animal studies show that the exposure to some environmental chemicals can cause bodies to mature early. Of particular concern are endocrine-disrupters, like “xeno-estrogens” or estrogen mimics. These compounds behave like steroid hormones and can alter puberty timing. For obvious ethical reasons, scientists cannot perform controlled studies proving the direct impact of these chemicals on children, so researchers instead look for so-called “natural experiments,” one of which occurred in 1973 in Michigan, when cattle were accidentally fed grain contaminated with an estrogen-mimicking chemical, the flame retardant PBB. The daughters born to the pregnant women who ate the PBB-laced meat and drank the PBB-laced milk started menstruating significantly earlier than their peers.
One concern, among parents and researchers, is the effect of simultaneous exposures to many estrogen-mimics, including the compound BPA, which is ubiquitous. Ninety-three percent of Americans have traces of BPA in their bodies. BPA was first made in 1891 and used as a synthetic estrogen in the 1930s. In the 1950s commercial manufacturers started putting BPA in hard plastics. Since then BPA has been found in many common products, including dental sealants and cash-register receipts. More than a million pounds of the substance are released into the environment each year.
The possibility that these early “normal” girls are reacting to estrogens that are not coming from their ovaries is compelling. Part of the comfort is that a girl who is not yet in puberty may not have developed an adolescent brain. This means she would not yet feel the acute tug of her own sexual urges. She would not seek thrills and risk. Still, the idea that there are enough toxins or fat cells in a child’s body to cause breast development is hardly consoling. Besides, some of the psychosocial problems of early puberty derive from what’s happening inside a girl’s body; others, from how people react to her. “If a girl is 10 and she looks 15, it doesn’t make any difference if her pituitary is turned on or if something else caused her breast growth,” Biro says. “She looks like a middle adolescent. People are going to treat her that way. Maybe she’s not interested in reciprocal sex, but she might be pressured into sex nonetheless, and her social skills will be those of a 10-year-old.”

Junk science? More like it’s an issue of business sponsored “science” vs science that does not have any bias. Unfortunately, in America, research is sponsored by companies that have a vested interest in the results. Here is what is on the CDC website (Centers for Disease Control) as well as NEW research from 2012-13. I did the same with the Monsanto issue- they got caught redhanded dumping PCBs in the water supply AND they poisoned our soldiers with Agent Orange not to mention settled a lawsuit quietly for a chemical that caused 500,000 children to be born with birth defects, why is this company still allowed to exist? Because America is a plutocracy with specific employees of these companies working inside the government (Michael Taylor and Tom Wilczak), but we’re working on remedying the situation with mandatory labeling. Hormone infested milk is already banned from most of our supermarkets and we labelling laws have been passed. Usage of GMO pesticides that damage the environment and cause cellular damage in humans (and were linked in a Stanford study to the exponential increase in childhood leukemia, birth defects and autism when consumed by pregnant women) has greatly been curtailed. The enemy is on the retreat- as well they should be for what they’ve done.

http://coe.ucsf.edu/prhe/pdfs/pesticidesmatter_whitepaper.pdf

http://www.google.com/search?client=aff-maxthon-newtab&channel=t2&q=gmo%20pesticides%20pregnant%20women%20leukemia%20birth%20defects%20infertility%20parkinsons%20leukemia

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=gmo%20pesticides%20pregnant%20women%20leukemia%20birth%20defects%20infertility%20parkinsons%20leukemia&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgroworganics.org%2F2012%2F08%2F11%2Fhealth-problems-associated-with-pesticide%2F&ei=VGV-UP2GHoyWswbsxoDQBA&usg=AFQjCNH5tdwcka8NvZSfssJ2KQV0oVdwmg

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=gmo%20pesticides%20pregnant%20women%20leukemia%20birth%20defects%20infertility%20parkinsons%20leukemia&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naturalnews.com%2Fpesticides.html&ei=VGV-UP2GHoyWswbsxoDQBA&usg=AFQjCNGIfHfiwQyuHi-mnsO3fX6AqRPU1w

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=gmo%20pesticides%20pregnant%20women%20leukemia%20birth%20defects%20infertility%20parkinsons%20leukemia&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naturalnews.com%2Fpesticides.html&ei=VGV-UP2GHoyWswbsxoDQBA&usg=AFQjCNGIfHfiwQyuHi-mnsO3fX6AqRPU1w

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=gmo%20pesticides%20pregnant%20women%20leukemia%20birth%20defects%20infertility%20parkinsons%20leukemia&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&ved=0CFgQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Flearnnutritionwithme.com%2Ftag%2Forganic%2F&ei=VGV-UP2GHoyWswbsxoDQBA&usg=AFQjCNGYDuDVQMECor-_mQ4TnnuglheYXw

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=gmo%20pesticides%20pregnant%20women%20leukemia%20birth%20defects%20infertility%20parkinsons%20leukemia&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CEYQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.getipm.com%2Farticles%2Fletters%2Fsitemap-ltrs.htm&ei=VGV-UP2GHoyWswbsxoDQBA&usg=AFQjCNGQITWkTDNTfQA46DyHY5IRtxA1Vg
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=gmo%20pesticides%20pregnant%20women%20leukemia%20birth%20defects%20infertility%20parkinsons%20leukemia&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CDsQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnext-level-nutrition.com%2F%3Fp%3D10895&ei=VGV-UP2GHoyWswbsxoDQBA&usg=AFQjCNG1tptpNq6vlxXvBnmDNtkDI6j64g

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=gmo%20pesticides%20pregnant%20women%20leukemia%20birth%20defects%20infertility%20parkinsons%20leukemia&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhealthfreedoms.org%2F2012%2F10%2F03%2Fcommon-herbicide-may-increase-risk-of-rare-and-dangerous-disorder-in-infants%2F&ei=VGV-UP2GHoyWswbsxoDQBA&usg=AFQjCNHaC7V7nqAR5GSOi0-uAObz50cdrA
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=gmo%20pesticides%20pregnant%20women%20leukemia%20birth%20defects%20infertility%20parkinsons%20leukemia&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CDYQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpreciousdirt.org%2F%3Fpage_id%3D3523&ei=VGV-UP2GHoyWswbsxoDQBA&usg=AFQjCNHDUpIBbADikPMVWH8gHXPLlLW6RQ

· less than 1 minute ago
These products need to be labeled just like cigarettes are labeled and the only way this country will become a democracy again and rise up from its plutocratic malaise is with what the people are doing now, take the law into your own hands and make them label. Boycott and picket any and all companies that still sell products with GMOs and bovine growth hormone! The government and these bad companies need to fear us, not the other way around. Folks the activist movement is just getting started, and it’s only going to get better from here, you can count on it!
Edit Delete Report
Reply
+1
supermanalexthegreat4p · less than 1 minute ago
also in addition to all of the above even the American Medical Association wants no GMO products released until they are tested INDEPENDENTLY (not by Monsanto or Dow!)

also in addition to all of the above even the American Medical Association wants no GMO products released until they are tested INDEPENDENTLY (not by Monsanto or Dow!)
EditDelete Report
Reply
+1
supermanalexthegreat 4p · 1 minute ago
These products need to be labeled just like cigarettes are labeled and the only way this country will become a democracy again and rise up from its plutocratic malaise is with what the people are doing now, take the law into your own hands and make them label. Boycott and picket any and all companies that still sell products with GMOs and bovine growth hormone! The government and these bad companies need to fear us, not the other way around. Folks the activist movement is just getting started, and it’s only going to get better from here, you can count on it!
EditDelete Report
Reply
+1
supermanalexthegreat 4p · 15 minutes ago
These products need to be labeled just like cigarettes are labeled and the only way this country will become a democracy again and rise up from its plutocratic malaise is with what the people are doing now, take the law into your own hands and make them label. Boycott and picket any and all companies that still sell products with GMOs and bovine growth hormone! The government and these bad companies need to fear us, not the other way around. Folks the activist movement is just getting started, and it’s only going to get better from here, you can count on it!

A big thank you to Wikileaks and anyone else who exposes government, military and corporate corruption and puts money ahead of real science.
EditDelete Report
Reply
+1
supermanalexthegreat 4p · 16 minutes ago
The US is always the last country to catch on, since industry employees work for the government and in the government and regulatory agencies (Michael Taylor, Clarence Thomas) and these companies bribe politicians to support their causes. It doesn’t matter what they do, civilians have now taken it into their own hands to label GMOs
EditDelete Report
Reply
+1
supermanalexthegreat 4p · 23 minutes ago
antiscience? take your head out of the sand, Monsanto is no different from the tobacco industry, using their money to cover up science. And if that wasnt bad enough there is the matter of them polluting the waters of Anniston Alabama with PCBs and Mercury. They dont even let their own employees’ children consume GMOs! There are numerous studies in the NIH database showing how dangerous these chemicals are.

http://covvha.net/monsantos-secret-roundup-and-birth-defects-report/#.U4ixYSgVcWA

https://www.facebook.com/EXPOSEMONSANTO

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/26/monsanto-brazil-idUSL1N0BQATJ20130226

Monsanto’s Secret Roundup and Birth Defects Report

The public is being kept in the dark when it comes to the birth defects that Monsanto’s money maker Roundup (Glyphosate) is causing.
How long do you want to stay there?
Truth Teller

Concerns about the best-selling herbicide Roundup® are running at an all-time high. Scientific research published in 2010 showed that Roundup and the chemical on which it is based, glyphosate, cause birth defects in frog and chicken embryos at dilutions much lower than those used in agricultural and garden spraying. The EU Commission dismissed these findings, based on a rebuttal provided by the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, BVL. BVL cited unpublished industry studies to back its claim that glyphosate was safe. The Commission has previously ignored or dismissed many other findings from the independent scientific literature showing that Roundup and glyphosate cause endocrine disruption, damage to DNA, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and cancer, as well as birth defects.

However, shortly after the Commission was notified of the latest research showing that glyphosate and Roundup cause birth defects, it quietly passed a directive delaying the review of glyphosate and 38 other dangerous pesticides until 2015. This delay is being challenged in a lawsuit brought against the Commission by Pesticides Action Network Europe and Greenpeace. Delaying the review of glyphosate until 2015 is serious enough. But in reality, the Commission’s slowness in preparing the new data requirements for the incoming regulation mean that glyphosate may well not be re-assessed in the light of up-to-date science until 2030. The beneficiary will be the pesticide industry; the victim will be public health.

The need for a review of glyphosate is particularly urgent in the light of the shortcomings of the existing review of the pesticide, on which its current approval rests. In this report, we examine the industry studies and regulatory documents that led to this approval. We show that industry and regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s and 1990s that glyphosate causes malformations – but that this information was not made public.

The industry studies and regulatory documents on which the current approval of glyphosate tests reveal that:

●Industry (including Monsanto) has known since the 1980s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses

●Industry has known since 1993 that these effects could also occur at lower and mid doses

●The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations

Advertisements