Professionals’ Statement Calling For End To Fluoridation

July 1, 2007

Over the last few days we have started something which should provide great ammunition to both local efforts and the effort to bring more pressure on DC. We have started to collect names on a "professionals' statement calling for end to to fluoridation."



This summarizes 7 major developments since 2000 which makes the end of fluoridation critical (see below for the statement and a list of those who have already signed).



It is aimed to puncture once and for all the false claim that the only people who are opposed to fluoridation are crazy people practicing junk science. We need to get as many professionals (medical, dental, scientific and environmental as well as water
department officials) to sign this as we possibly can. This list will grow and grow over the coming months. I am confident that as the list grows it will make it easier and easier for those opposed to it (quietly, off the record) to come out and state their opposition in public.

This is how you can help.

Please check the list of people who have helped in your campaign. Does this include any doctor, dentist, nurse, hygienist, academic, water department person, anyone holding an executive position in an environmental group? If so please ask them to sign the statement and send it back to me at paul @ fluoridealert.org.



Please check out the list of people who have already signed. You notice that we already have two members of the NRC (2006) signed, as well as many doctors and dentists, and some very distinguished people from the environmental movement: Ken Cook (EWG), Peter Montague, Pat Costner, Craig Williams, Dan Knapp, Jeffrey Morris, Ralph Ryder (UK) and Mageswari Sangaralingam (Malaysia) as well as a great international representation.



The importance of the "environmental" names is twofold:

1) they bring a more objective perspective to this debate than those who have been trapped by their medical/dental school training/brainwashing and



2) as our support grows among the environmental movement it will generate far more numbers to put pressure on DC.

Where does this fit in to our larger efforts?



Our ultimate goal - to get a congressional hearing and have those who promote fluoridation to testify and be cross-examined under oath.


* First we mobilize as many professionals to support the call for an end to fluoridation as outlined above.


* Then we organize a new online petition which supports these professionals call for an end to fluoridation and calls for among other things, a congressional hearing. As we have already discussed we will be using a system which will automatically send each
signature to their reps in DC. This flow of emails to DC will be our bread and butter background effort for the next few years. It will ebb and flow as other fluoride events take place ? but it will always be there as a backdrop.


* We will further increase efforts on DC with individual lobbying efforts by myself (Chris Gupta), Bill Hirzy, Bill Osmunson and others.


* On the horizon is also the possibility of a lobby day, where we will have a coordinated effort to get more people to DC to lobby as a group as well as those (who cannot make it to DC) lobbying their reps at their local offices.

Please let me know if you think you can get 1, 2 or more professionals in your town or state to sign onto this statement.

Thanks again for your patience and for everything else you are trying to do to end this silly practice.

Paul Connett

Signers of Professionals' statement "End Water Fluoridation Now":

Robert Anderson, PhD, New Zealand


Ernesto Burgio, Pediatrician, Vice President, Scientific Committee


ISDE (International Society of Doctors for Environment), Palermo, Italy


Albert W. Burgstahler, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Co-author with George L. Waldbott, MD, and H. Lewis McKinney, PhD, of "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma" (Coronado Press, 1978) and editor since 1998 of the international quarterly journal Fluoride, published by the International Society for Fluoride Research (www.fluorideresearch.org).


Noel Campbell, BDSc, LDS, FACNEM, FASID, Visiting Professor, Hope Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia


Neil J. Carman, PhD, Clean air program director, Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter, Austin, TX


Robert J. Carton, PhD, former Chief of Environmental Compliance, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Fort Detrick, MD and former president of EPA professionals' union.


Paul Connett, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY and Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network.


Ken Cook, Environmental Working Group, Washington, DC


Pat Costner, Science Advisor, GAIA, Science Advisor, IPEN, retired Senior Scientist, Greenpeace International


Mark Diesendorf, PhD, Director, Sustainability Centre, Sydney, Australia


Lynn Howard Ehrle, MEd, Chair, International Science Oversight Board (a project of the Organic Consumers Association), Plymouth, MI


Michael F. Dolan, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Department of Geosciences, UMASS, Amherst, MA USA
Mike Godfrey, MBBS, Tauranga, New Zealand


Dorothy Goldin-Rosenberg, MES, PhD, Toronto, Canada


Robert L. Isaacson, Distinguished Professor, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY. Member of the 2006 National Research Council panel which reviewed the toxicology of fluoride.


Antone G. Jacobson, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX


David Kennedy, DDS, Past President of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, San Diego, CA


Pam Killeen, co-author of the NY Times bestselling book, The Great Bird Flu Hoax.


Dan Knapp, PhD, (Sociology) CEO of Urban Ore, Incorporated, a reuse and recycling business in Berkeley, CA


Stephen M. Koral, DMD, Vice President International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Boulder, CO


Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS, Assoc. Professor and Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, past president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research, and Member of the 2006 National Research Council panel which reviewed the toxicology of fluoride.


Mariann Lloyd-Smith, PhD, (Law) Senior Advisor, National Toxics Network Inc., East Ballina, NSW Australia


Don Mac Auley, BDS, Dental Surgeon and Chairman of Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation, Ireland


Peter Montague, PhD, Environmental Research Foundation, New Brunswick, N.J.


Jeffrey Morris, PhD (Economics), Sound Resource Management, Olympia, WA


Alan Muller, Executive Director, Green Delaware, Port Penn, DE


Tohru Murakami DDS, PhD, former President of Japanese Society for Fluoride Research, former Vice President of Gunma prefectural Dental Association, Japan.


Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH,


Robert Pocock, fluoride spokesperson for VOICE for the Irish Environment, Dublin, Ireland.


Paul G. Rubin, DDS, MIAOMT, Seattle, WA


Ralph Anthony Ryder, Director, Communities Against Toxics UK, Editor; TOXCAT, Ellesmere Port, UK


Mageswari Sangaralingam (Masters in Environmental Management), Research Officer, Consumers Association of Penang, Malaysia.


Bruce Spittle MB ChB DPM FRANZCP, Assistant Editor of the international quarterly journal Fluoride, published by the International Society for Fluoride Research, New Zealand


Daniel G. Stockin, MPH, Senior Operations Officer, The Lillie Center, Inc.


Craig E. Williams, Director: Kentucky Environmental Foundation, Director: Chemical Weapons Working Group, Recipient: 2006 Goldman Environmental Prize, KY


Mae W. Woo, DDS, Billings, MT


Mag. Dipl.-Ing. Dr.techn. Rudolf Ziegelbecker, Graz, Austria

Quotes:

Noel Campbell: "The risk/benefit ratio based on peer reviewed research is now too high to allow fluoridation of water." Bob Isaacson: "The Health of the entire country is at risk as long as fluoridation of the drinking water remains uncurbed." Mageswari Sangaralingam: "Fluoridation is mass medication with an uncontrolled dose, and violates the individual's right to informed consent. We need to end the harmful practice of water fluoridation in the US and all other countries which still add fluoride in public drinking water."

Health, Scientific and Environmental Professionals call for an End to Water Fluoridation

Introduction:

Water fluoridation involves adding various fluoride chemicals to the public water supply at a concentration of 1 ppm (1 part per million or 1 milligram per liter), ostensibly to fight tooth decay. 1 ppm may seem small, but it is actually 250 times greater than the level of fluoride in mother's milk, 0.004 ppm.



Once fluoride is put into the public water supply, the dose cannot be controlled and it goes to "patients" without their consent, thus violating both medical ethics and the individual's human rights. It also goes to subsets of the population that we now know are particularly vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects - including the very young, the very old, the infirm, people with poor kidney function and others with poor nutrition.



While strongly supported by the US public health establishment, most countries have rejected this practice, including the vast majority of European nations. They are not willing to force medication on those who do not want it, and they feel that many health concerns have not been resolved (see a list of official statements from various countries on this is here). According to WHO data available online, dental health for 12 year olds in non-fluoridated countries is as good, if not better, than those countries which fluoridate.



These observations in countries are duplicated in studies comparing communities within a country. Since the 1980s there has been an ever growing number of research articles and reviews which indicate that there is little difference in tooth decay between communities which are fluoridated and those which are not (Leverett, 1982; Colquhoun,
1984; 1985 and 1987; Diesendorf, 1986; Gray, 1987; Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Spencer et al. 1996; deLiefde, 1998; Locker, 1999; Armfield and Spencer, 2004 and Prizzo et al., 2007). Any minor difference due to fluoride status is usually dwarfed by the
difference in income levels. Poverty is the major factor related to tooth decay, not lack of fluoride.



Government officials endlessly promote fluoridation while steadfastly refusing to publicly debate the issue, or provide the scientific evidence to support their claims.

Professionals' statement:

We the undersigned call for an end to water fluoridation.



SEVEN recent events make action to end this practice urgent.



1. The publication in 2006 of a 500 page review of all relevant health effects and exposure information on fluoride by a distinguished panel appointed by the National Research Council. EPA requested this review to determine if a new drinking water standard is required. Contrary to almost all media reports, the NRC report went far beyond concluding that the current EPA standard (4 ppm) is unsafe and should be lowered. The report identified numerous systemic health effects which may be occurring as a result of adding fluoride chemicals to drinking water, including decreased thyroid function, impaired glucose tolerance (pre-diabetes), brain cell damage, kidney damage, arthritis (joint inflammation), Alzheimer's disease and cancer.



2. The publication in 2004 of the book "The Fluoride Deception" by award-winning investigative reporter Christopher Bryson. This meticulously researched book documents that industrial interests, concerned about liabilities from fluoride pollution and fluoride's heath effects on workers, played a significant role in the early promotion of fluoridation in the 1950?s. Bryson also details the brutal suppression of scientists who have challenged the establishment on the safety of this practice. A videotaped interview with Bryson can be accessed on Google video here.



3. The evidence provided by the CDC
in 2005 that 32% of American children have a condition called dental fluorosis - a discoloration and mottling of the enamel - caused by fluoride exposure. Clearly, our children are now being overdosed with fluoride - from water, swallowed toothpaste and many other sources. Fluoridated water is the easiest source to eliminate.



4. The American Dental Association's distribution, on November 9, 2006, of an Advisory to its membership recommending that fluoridated water not be used in the preparation of infant formula due to the elevated risk of dental fluorosis. This admission by the ADA that fluoridated water is not appropriate for infants is reason alone for fluoridation to be immediately halted (see previous post in this blog).



5. The concession by the CDC in 1999, and again in 2001, that the predominant benefit of fluoride in reducing tooth decay is TOPICAL and not SYSTEMIC. In other words, to the extent fluoride works to reduce or prevent tooth decay, it works from the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. Thus, it doesn't make sense to drink it and expose the rest of the body to the long term risks of fluoride ingestion when fluoridated toothpaste is so readily available.



6. The publication in May 2006 of a peer-reviewed, case-controlled study from Harvard University which showed a 5-7 fold increase in osteosarcoma (a frequently fatal bone cancer) in young men associated with exposure to fluoridated water during their 6th, 7th and 8th years (Bassin et al., Cancer Causes and Control, 2006). This study was surrounded by scandal as Elise Bassin?s PhD thesis adviser, Professor Chester Douglass, was accused by the watchdog Environmental Working Group of attempting to suppress these findings for several years. See video at http://FluorideAction.net



7. The admission by federal agencies, in response to questions from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, that the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90% of America's drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to toxicological testing or FDA approved for human ingestion. See:
http://keepersofthewell.org/

To bring an end to fluoridation:

We call upon Members of Congress to sponsor and/or support a new Congressional Hearing on Water Fluoridation so that those in government agencies who continue to support the procedure, particularly the Oral Health Division of the
CDC, will be compelled to provide the scientific basis for their ongoing, aggressive promotion of fluoridation with millions of taxpayer dollars. They must be cross-examined under oath if the public is ever to fully learn the truth about this unnecessary and harmful practice.



We call upon local elected officials in fluoridated communities to exercise due diligence in this matter and read the basic scientific literature themselves. It is not enough to blindly accept assurances from biased agencies whose reputations depend on maintaining the status quo and whose employees are required to promote fluoridation.
If you are not confident about claims that fluoridation is safe and effective, you should not be forcing this practice on those who don't want it and may be harmed by it.



We call upon members of the media to do a professional job investigating this issue. Do not assume that the opposition's arguments are invalid because of the reams of endorsements that promoters use to put your intelligence on hold. It is irresponsible
to just quote the Dr. Strangelove film and a few sentences from each side. If author Christopher Bryson can spend 10 years researching this issue, surely other investigative journalists can spend more than 10 minutes sorting out fact from fiction in this matter.



We call upon State health agencies, at the very least, to use their health networks to thoroughly publicize, at all levels, the ADA recommendation that fluoridated water not be used in the preparation of infant formula.



We call upon medical and dental professionals to get up-to-date on this issue. Professionals should use their own high level education to look beyond the outdated blanket endorsements from promoting agencies. Specifically, we call upon them to review the NRC (2006) report and the other literature cited in the introduction.
(An alphabetical listing of the full citations can be found here).



We call upon members of environmental and other activist groups to get involved. In addition to health concerns, fluoridation is "pollution by dilution" of the ecosystems with tons of industrial waste products each year. This problem is one that's easy to end -- once we have the political will -- by just turning off the taps. Getting that political will can be greatly accelerated by your organization educating its membership as to the newer developments identified above and by joining in the growing movement to end fluoridation.



Despite 60 years of fluoridation, tooth decay remains rampant in many long-fluoridated areas of the US. The untold millions of dollars that are now spent on equipment, chemicals, monitoring, and promotion of fluoridation could be much better invested on nutrition education and targeted dental care for children from low income families who are known to suffer the greatest amount of tooth decay. The vast majority of other countries have done this. It is time for the US to recognize that the fluoridation program has failed to deliver its promise, poses unnecessary risks, and violates medical ethics and freedom of choice. Fluoridation should be ended now.

Drinking hormones and steroids with your Coffee?

While Starbucks claims to care about environmental and health issues, the truth is in their milk.

Starbucks uses milk from cows that are injected with a growth hormone known as rBGH or rBST to speed up their milk production. Tell Starbucks this is unacceptable! >>

These growth hormones are known to harm cows and could pose health risks to humans. But factory farms continue to use them as an attempt to increase their profitability. Starbucks lets them get away with using the damaging hormones by serving this milk to millions of unknowing consumers!

Let Starbucks know it’s time to step up and serve safer milk >> http://go.care2.com/e/R0DZ/IhP3/U1cM

The use of rBGH increases the rate of udder infections in cows, and contributes to the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria. What’s more, injections of rBGH raise the levels of another hormone called IGF-1 in the cow and its milk. Too much IGF-1 in humans is linked to increased rates of colon, breast and prostate cancer.

The rBGH hormone is banned in Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and all 25 countries in the European Union. But the United State’s Food and Drug Administration ignores the growing controversy, allowing the damaging growth hormone to be used.

Join the movement of consumers who won’t tolerate being served milk from cows treated with dangerous growth hormones. Take action >>

Thank you for helping to make a difference!

Truly,
Breeana L.
Care2 and ThePetitionSite Team

>" border="0">

Starbucks uses milk from cows treated with the hormone rBGH. This is bad for cows, humans AND the environment!

Let Starbucks know it's time to step up and serve safer milk!

Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies

ANNOUNCEMENT:
Saturday, May 19th Two Live National Radio Appearances:
Sirius 10:49AM EST; Premiere Radio Networks 7:00-10:00 PM PST.

Tune in to hear Jeffrey Smith's conversations with two national radio hosts this Saturday, May 19th. Jeffrey will be a guest on Lime Radio on Sirius 114, "Before You Bite" w/Phil Lempert, in the ten o'clock hour EST, and later, on Premiere Radio Network's Ian Punnett: Coast to Coast Live, from 7PM to 10PM PST. Find your Ian Punnett: Coast to Coast Live station listing at Coast to Coast AM.

This Spilling the Beans issue is being released during Food Allergy Awareness Week, and is part of our special series on Food Safety and Genetically Engineered Foods.

Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies

Part 1: Genetically Engineered Soybeans

The huge jump in childhood food allergies in the US is in the news often[1], but most reports fail to consider a link to a recent radical change in America' s diet. Beginning in 1996, bacteria, virus and other genes have been artificially inserted to the DNA of soy, corn, cottonseed and canola plants. These unlabeled genetically modified (GM) foods carry a risk of triggering life-threatening allergic reactions, and evidence collected over the past decade now suggests that they are contributing to higher allergy rates.

Food safety tests are inadequate to protect public health

Scientists have long known that GM crops might cause allergies. But there are no tests to prove in advance that a GM crop is safe.[2] That's because people aren't usually allergic to a food until they have eaten it several times. The only definitive test for allergies, according to former FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, is human consumption by affected peoples, which can have ethical considerations.[3] And it is the ethical considerations of feeding unlabeled, high-risk GM crops to unknowing consumers that has many people up in arms.

The UK is one of the few countries that conducts a yearly evaluation of food allergies. In March 1999, researchers at the York Laboratory were alarmed to discover that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by 50% over the previous year. Genetically modified soy had recently entered the UK from US imports and the soy used in the study was largely GM. John Graham, spokesman for the York laboratory, said, We believe this raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods.[4]

Critics of GM foods often say that the US population is being used as guinea pigs in an experiment. But experiments have the benefit of controls and measurement. In this case, there is neither. GM food safety experts point out that even if a someone tried to collect data about allergic reactions to GM foods, they would not likely be successful. The potential allergen is rarely identified. The number of allergy-related medical visits is not tabulated. Even repeated visits due to well-known allergens are not counted as part of any established surveillance system.[5] Indeed, after the Canadian government announced in 2002 that they would keep a careful eye on the health of Canadians[6] to see if GM foods had any adverse reactions, they abandoned their plans within a year, saying that such a study was too difficult.

Genetic engineering may provoke increased allergies to soy

The classical understanding of why a GM crop might create new allergies is that the imported genes produce a new protein, which has never before been present. The novel protein may trigger reactions. This was demonstrated in the mid 1990s when soybeans were outfitted with a gene from the Brazil nut. While the scientists had attempted to produce a healthier soybean, they ended up with a potentially deadly one. Blood tests from people who were allergic to Brazil nuts showed reactions to the beans.[7] It was fortunately never put on the market.

The GM variety that is planted in 89% of US soy acres gets its foreign gene from bacteria (with parts of virus and petunia DNA as well). We don't know in advance if the protein produced by bacteria, which has never been part of the human food supply, will provoke a reaction. As a precaution, scientists compare this new protein with a database of proteins known to cause allergies. The database lists the proteins' amino acid sequences that have been shown to trigger immune responses. If the new GM protein is found to contain sequences that are found in the allergen database, according to criteria recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others, the GM crop should either not be commercialised or additional testing should be done. Sections of the protein produced in GM soy are identical to known allergens, but the soybean was
introduced before the WHO criteria were established and the recommended additional
tests were not conducted (How do health hazards get grand fathered????!!!!!).

If this protein in GM soybeans is causing allergies, then the situation may be made much worse by something called horizontal gene transfer (HGT). That's when genes spontaneously transfer from one species' DNA to another. While this happens often among bacteria, it is rare in plants and mammals. But the method used to construct and insert foreign genes into GM crops eliminates many of the natural barriers that stop HGT from occurring. Indeed, the only published human feeding study on GM foods ever conducted verified that portions of the gene inserted into GM soy ended up transferring into the DNA of human gut bacteria. Furthermore, the gene was stably integrated and it appeared to be producing its potentially allergenic protein. This means that years after people stop eating GM soy, they may still be exposed to its risky protein, which is being continuously produced within their intestines.

Genetic engineering damaged soy DNA, creating new (or more) allergens

Although biotech advocates describe the process of genetic engineering as precise, in which genes 'like Legos' cleanly snap into place, this is false. The process of creating a GM crop can produce massive changes in the natural functioning of the plant's DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their levels of protein expression. This collateral damage may result in increasing the levels of an existing allergen, or even producing a completely new, unknown allergen within the crop. Both appear to have happened in GM soy.

Levels of one known soy allergen, trypsin inhibitor, were up to 27% higher in raw GM soy. In addition, although cooking soybeans normally reduces the amount of this protein, the trypsin inhibitor in GM varieties appears to be more heat resistant. Levels in cooked GM soy were nearly as high as those found in raw soy, and up to seven times higher when compared to cooked non-GM soy.[8] This suggests that this allergen in GM soy may be more likely to provoke reactions than when consumed in natural varieties.

Another study verified that GM soybeans contain a unique, unexpected protein, not found in non-GM soy controls. Moreover, scientist tested the protein and determined that it reacted with the antibody called IgE. This antibody in human blood plays a key role in a large proportion of allergic reactions, including those that involve life-threatening anaphylactic shock. The fact that the unique protein created by GM soy interacted with IgE suggests that it might also trigger allergies.

The same researchers measured the immune response of human subjects to soybeans using a skin-prick test, an evaluation used often by allergy doctors. Eight subjects showed a reaction to GM soy; but one of these did not also react to non-GM soy. Although the sample size is small, the implication that certain people react only to GM soy is huge, and might account for the increase in soy allergies in the UK.

Increased herbicides on GM crops may cause reactions

By 2004, farmers used an estimated 86% more herbicide on GM soy fields compared to non-GM.[9] The higher levels of herbicide residue in GM soy might cause health problems. In fact, many of the symptoms identified in the UK soy allergy study are among those related to glyphosate exposure. [The allergy study identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, chronic fatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints, including acne and eczema, all related to soy consumption. Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches, lethargy, skin rashes, and burning or itchy skin. It is also possible that glyphosate's breakdown product AMPA, which accumulates in GM soybeans after each spray, might contribute to allergies.]

GM soy might impede digestion, leading to allergies

If proteins survive longer in the digestive tract, they have more time to provoke an allergic reaction. Mice fed GM soy showed dramatically reduced levels of pancreatic enzymes. If protein-digesting enzymes are less available, then food proteins may last longer in the gut, allowing more time for an allergic reaction to take place. Such a reduction in protein digestion due to GM soy consumption could therefore promote allergic reactions to a wide range of proteins, not just to the soy. No human studies of protein digestion related to GM soy have been conducted. [Studies are expensive whether for profit or altruism. Until the studies are done, the logic can be denied by GM advocates.]

Soy linked to peanut allergies

There is at least one protein in natural soybeans that has cross-reactivity with peanut allergies.[10] That means that for some people who are allergic to peanuts, consuming soybeans may trigger a reaction. While it is certainly possible that the unpredicted side effects from genetic engineering soybeans might increase the incidence of this cross-reactivity, it is unlikely that any research has been conducted to investigate this. GM soy was introduced into the US food supply in late 1996. We are left only to wonder whether this had an influence on the doubling of US peanut allergies from 1997 to 2002.

Eating GM foods is gambling with our health

The introduction of genetically engineered foods into our diet was done quietly and without the mandatory labeling that is required in most other industrialised countries. Without knowing that GM foods might increase the risk of allergies, and without knowing which foods contain GM ingredients, the biotech industry is gambling with our health for their profit. This risk is not lost on everyone. In fact, millions of shoppers are now seeking foods that are free from any GM ingredients. Ohio-based allergy specialist John Boyles, MD, says, I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it unless it says organic.[11]

Organic foods are not allowed to contain GM ingredients. Buying products that are certified organic or that say non-GMO are two ways to limit your family's risk from GM foods. Another is to avoid products containing any ingredients from the seven food crops that have been genetically engineered:

• soy,
• corn,
• cottonseed,
• canola,
• Hawaiian papaya
• and a little bit of zucchini and crook neck squash.

This means avoiding soy lecithin in chocolate, corn syrup in candies, and cottonseed or canola oil in snack foods.

Fortunately, the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America will soon make your shopping easier. This Consumer Non-GMO Education Campaign is orchestrating the clean out of GM ingredients from foods and the natural products industry. The campaign will circulate helpful non-GMO shopping guides to organic and natural food stores nationwide. The Campaign will provide consumers with regular GM food safety updates that explain the latest discoveries about why, Healthy Eating Means No GMOs.

Safe eating.

This article is limited to the discussion of allergic reactions from GM soybeans. The evidence that GM corn is triggering allergies is far more extensive and will be covered in part 2 of this series.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of the new publication Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, which presents 65 risks in easy-to-read two-page spreads. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the top rated and #1 selling book on GM foods in the world. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, which is spearheading the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. Go to www.seedsofdeception.com to learn more about how to avoid GM foods.

[1] See for example, Charles Sheehan, Scientists see spike in kids' food allergies, Chicago Tribune, 9 June 2006,

[2] See for example, Carl B. Johnson, Memo on the draft statement of policy 12/12/91, January 8, 1992. Johnson wrote: Are we asking the crop developer to prove that food from his crop is non-allergenic? This seems like an impossible task.

[3] Louis J. Pribyl, Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92, March 6, 1992,
www.biointegrity.org

[4] Ibid.

[5] Traavik and Heinemann, Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research

[6] Genetically modified foods, who knows how safe they are? CBC News and Current Affairs, September 25, 2006.

[7] J. Ordlee, et al, Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans, The New England Journal of Medicine, March 14, 1996.

[8] Stephen R. Padgette et al, The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans, The Journal of Nutrition 126, no. 4, (April 1996); including data in the journal archives from the same study.

[9] Charles Benbrook, Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years; BioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper Number 7, October 2004.

[10] See for example, Scott H. Sicherer et al., Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the United States determined by means of a random digit dial telephone survey: A 5-year follow-up study, Journal of allergy and clinical immunology, March 2003, vol. 112, n 6, 1203-1207); and Ricki Helm et al., Hypoallergenic Foods, Soybeans and Peanuts, Information Systems for Biotechnology News Report, October 1, 2002.

[11] John Boyles, MD, personal communication, 2007.

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at ResponsibleTechnology.org.
The website also offers eater-friendly tips for avoiding GMOs at home and in
restaurants.

Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water

Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water:
Perchlorate Pollution Spreading Nationwide

Drinking water for more than 20 million Americans is contaminated with a toxic legacy of the Cold War: A chemical that interferes with normal thyroid function, may cause cancer and persists indefinitely in the environment, but is currently unregulated by state or federal authorities.

Perchlorate, the explosive main ingredient of rocket and missile fuel, contaminates drinking water supplies, groundwater or soil in hundreds of locations in at least 43 states, according to Environmental Working Group’s updated analysis of government data. EWG’s analysis of the latest scientific studies, which show harmful health effects from minute doses, argues that a national standard for perchlorate in drinking water should be no higher than one-tenth the level the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency currrently recommends as safe.

Perchlorate is a powerful thyroid toxin that can affect the thyroid’s ability to take up the essential nutrient iodide and make thyroid hormones. Small disruptions in thyroid hormone levels during pregnancy can cause lowered IQ and larger disruptions cause mental retardation, loss of hearing and speech, or deficits in motor skills for infants and children.

In California, Arizona and Nevada, where testing has been most extensive, well over 20 million people drink water from public and private sources known to be polluted with perchlorate. This estimate includes millions of customers of 81 contaminated public water systems in California and aproximately 20 million customers in the three states who get at least part of their drinking water from the perchlorate-tainted Colorado River. (Because there is some overlap between systems that are supplied by groundwater sources and those supplied by the Colorado River, a total cannot be calculated by adding the two figures.)

Link: Perchlorate-contaminated drinking water sources in California.

Link: More than 20 million people in California, Arizona and Nevada get at least part of their drinking water from the perchlorate-contaminated Colorado River.

Read the rest of Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water at ewg.org

Read about more poison at Poison Spectrum