Loving Self...Are you?

Loving Self class taught by Angelique Priscilla, PT in Norwich on November 16th.

For Real Food Safety, Support Local Food and Local Oversight

For those who care about local foods and small farms, please submit comments to the FDA by November 15th on the new Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Signed into law by President Obama in January of 2011, the FDA has taken more than two years to move FSMA through its rule-making procedure—a process still ongoing. The FDA hails FSMA as the most “sweeping reform of food safety laws in over 70 years.” An undeniably important objective given the attention-grabbing headlines announcing outbreaks of foodborne illness from hamburgers, chicken, fruits and vegetables, FSMA unfortunately undermines some of the safest producers of food in the nation—our local farmers.

The "sweeping" law risks sweeping the little guy right out of business. Designed to cover the disparate extremes of industrial farming and neighborhood farm stands, FSMA's one size fits all is a disaster in the making. The voluminous 548 page law is confusing. On the surface it appears that farms grossing less than $500,000 would be exempt from the law, but on closer examination, many farms would indeed have to comply with the expensive and cumbersome rules. How many? Neither the state agriculture department nor the FDA can answer that definitively, but based on USDA numbers and income criteria likely hundreds of Vermont farms will be affected.

At an FDA "listening session" held last month, farmers from Vermont and New Hampshire gave FDA representatives an almost universally unfavorable earful. Themes repeated throughout the morning were: the proposed law was overly cumbersome to struggling small farms; the majority of food borne illness outbreaks come from imported foods and large scale industrial food companies, not small, diversified farms in New England; criteria for the new law is not supposed to be in conflict with organic standards, but it is; and FSMA seems to duplicate laws that many farms already comply with like the USDA’s Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) program. Across the board, farmers felt the proposed law would put onerous requirements on them, consume their already tiny profit margins, hamper growth, and force many of them out of business. 

Over the course of the session, many farmers expressed their frustration at the inconsistencies and double standards in federal food safety policy. The FDA admits it is able to inspect only about 2% of imported food even though imported food has repeatedly been implicated in food borne illness outbreaks. While the government plans to impose increasingly cumbersome regulations on small produce farms, they are simultaneously relaxing and changing laws that will deleteriously affect food safety. Recently the USDA announced that it will allow U.S. grown chicken to be processed in China for resale in the United States, without any USDA inspectors on site. The processed chicken, used in canned soups, chicken nuggets and other products, will be sold

without any label informing the consumer it was processed in China.

Earlier in 2013, in an effort to save money for the government and the poultry industry, the USDA announced plans to cut back the inspectors at slaughterhouse kill-lines by 75%, leaving only one inspector where there used to be four, while increasing the numbers of chickens killed to 175 per minute. USDA Secretary Vilsack believes that this will reduce thousands of foodborne illnesses, even though the Environmental Working Group’s report, Superbugs Invade American Supermarkets, exposes that antibiotic resistant bacteria is found in 81% of ground turkey; 69% of pork chops; 55% of ground beef; and 39% of chicken breasts, wings and thighs. No worries. Under the new USDA rules, chicken carcasses will be doused in chlorinated water and “other antimicrobial substances” to deal with lingering fecal matter and other contaminants. 

The numbers of food borne illnesses used to justify FSMA are high. While quoted in the press as hard numbers they are, in fact, only estimates. These numbers were announced by the CDC a month before Obama signed FSMA into law and are almost 2000 times the rate of illness and 150 times the rate of death that were documented between 1998 and 2008. In Vermont, cases of food borne illnesses are low—about 250 statewide in 2012—although relative to population they hover around what the Vermont Department of Health cites as the national averages for reported cases in 2011 of 14.3 to 16.5 per 100,000. Over the past almost twenty years, the number of cases in Vermont have stayed relatively consistent. The Department’s most recent report on foodborne illness, dated May 2013, explains that Vermont’s cases are mostly “sporadic”—i.e. they are not connected.

While the Vermont Department of Health (DOH) agrees with the CDC that underreporting is a problem, State epidemiologist and foodborne illness expert, Erica Berl is quick to say that the DOH does not want every single person who is experiencing diarrhea or vomiting to report to the state. Berl says there are many reasons for these common symptoms of foodborne illness but, “most cases of GI illnesses are from viruses passed from human to human.”

When asked if she thought foodborne illness in Vermont could be traced to small local farms she replied, “Causation is very difficult to prove and often near impossible with the small numbers in Vermont. It is impossible to state that food borne illness does or does not ever come from small farms. What we know, capital K, is that there are certain high-risk foods linked to certain pathogens.” 

In short, there is no way to prove that any small farms in Vermont have caused any foodborne illness in the state. But, there is also no way to prove they haven’t.

While the state may not be able to say unequivocally that small farms are not the cause of foodborne illness, the farmers made it very clear at the FDA session that they do not believe they are to blame for outbreaks in the state. Repeatedly farmers said, “My family and I eat the food we are growing and selling. We would be the first to get sick if there were a problem.” Others commented that since they know their customers, they would be aware if someone got sick.

Some farmers expressed their fear that as small farms are forced out of business that foodborne illness will increase not decrease. The question begs, does trying to reduce the 200 some odd annual cases of foodborne illness which can not be definitively linked to Vermont’s small farms justify the enormous health and economic impact of FSMA throughout the state? If society’s goal is to keep reducing or trying to reduce the percentages of people who are sick then maybe the small farms of Vermont should be viewed as part of the healthy solution and goal, not as the culprits. It raises the need for an examination of health and what is considered relevant to food safety. Acute illness is dramatic and headline grabbing, but debilitating chronic illness is often far more damaging in the long run. Is diabetes a food safety issue? Are allergies a food safety issue? Chronic digestive diseases?

There is a reason Vermont has, per capita, the most farmer’s markets, certified organic farms, certified organic farm land, CSAs, local dollars spent on local foods, artisan cheese-makers, micro-breweries, and maple producers in the entire country. We love our local food producers, we care about our health and we are proud of Vermont’s agricultural heritage. 

Champion real food safety and security. Let FSMA fulfill its mandate by regulating those producing contaminated food, not those providing healthy food. Let the FDA know that you support Vermont local farms and local oversight. Tell the FDA that farms grossing less than $1 million should be regulated locally, by the Vermont Department of Agriculture, not the federal government. Keep Vermont’s farmers in business and keep our food healthy. Send your comments to the FDA by November 15th 2013.

Vinegar to the Rescue

The kind of health news I love to read: A study in India has found that a simple, cheap and safe substance—vinegar—illuminates cervical cancer, thus saving suffering and lives.

According to AP, "India has nearly one-third of the world's cases of cervical cancer — more than 140,000 each year." Where pap smears cost money and lab access, the vinegar diagnostic requires neither. AP reports, "This study tried a test that costs very little and can be done by local people with just two weeks of training and no fancy lab equipment. They swab the cervix with diluted vinegar, which can make abnormal cells briefly change color.

'This low-tech visual exam cut the cervical cancer death rate by 31 percent, the study found. It could prevent 22,000 deaths in India and 72,600 worldwide each year, researchers estimate.

We can only hope for more innovative discoveries of effective, safe, cheap approaches to our health care needs.


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/261381.php

Important update to FDA and Mistletoe

You can purchase Mistletoe as an individual from Canada. In the U.S. you can as well, but not right now. Weleda, manufacturer of Iscador, has temporarily halted shipment into the United States. Americans wanting Mistletoe can order it directly (you must know the host tree and potency you need) from the Ontario online natural pharmacy FeelGoodNatural.com
 

More Health Legislation—Toxic TRIS

Toxins in our homes, schools and environment are an ever-increasing health hazard. As the Chicago Tribune reports, American babies are born with "the highest recorded levels of flame retardants among infants in the world."

Bills have been introduced in the Vermont House (# H.241) and Senate (# S.81) to ban toxic flame retardants like TRIS in furniture and baby products.

The Environmental Working Group published a study in 2008 examining the blood of mothers and their toddlers for levels of toxic fire retardants. In 19 out of 20 families, 11 different flame retardant chemicals were present in the children at up to 86% higher concentrations than the mothers. See the report here.

See the Chicago Tribune for a four-part investigation into the flame retardant scandal. 

We need to stop poisoning ourselves and our children. Let your legislators know you support the ban of Tris and other toxic flame retardants now!

The bills have support, but it is always best to send your legislators a quick email or note to let them know you are in support of the bills—every little bit helps.

FDA Quietly Removing Access to Natural Health

Right under our noses the FDA is restricting our right to medical freedom and choice. Mistletoe products—used in Europe for almost one hundred years to treat cancer and other diseases—can no longer be purchased in the U.S or Canada.

In the National Cancer Institute information about Mistletoe there is irony and contradiction with glaring contradictions such as in bullet number 3 (see below). In the same breath NCI is acknowledging Mistletoe's long, wide and successful use, but nevertheless the FDA is not allowing it to be used in this country.

Our ability to choose what types of healthcare we want to use for ourselves and our families is being hijacked by government agencies, medical associations like the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the pharmaceutical industry.

It is time for this medical monopoly to stop. Please contact your Congressman and let them know you want the discrimination against medical orientation to end NOW.

Overview

• Mistletoe is a semiparasitic plant that grows on several types of common trees such as apple, oak, pine, and elm. Mistletoe extract has been used since ancient times to treat many ailments (see Question 1).
• Mistletoe is one of the most widely studied complementary and alternative medicine therapies in people with cancer. In certain European countries, preparations made from European mistletoe are among the most prescribed drugs for patients with cancer (see Question 1).
• Mistletoe extract has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory and to affect the immune system. However, there is limited evidence that mistletoe's effects on the immune system help the body fight cancer (see Question 2 and Question 3).
• Mistletoe extracts are usually given by injection under the skin or, less often, into a vein, into the pleural cavity, or into the tumor. (see Question 4).
• Animal studies have suggested that mistletoe may be useful in decreasing the side effects of standard anticancer therapy, such as chemotherapy and radiation (see Question 5).
• Several human studies using mistletoe to treat cancer have been done since the early 1960s, but major weaknesses in many of these have raised doubts about their findings (see Question 6).
• Very few harmful side effects have been reported from the use of mistletoe extract (see Question 7).
• The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved mistletoe as a treatment for cancer or any other medical condition (see Question 8).
• The FDA does not allow injectable mistletoe to be imported, sold, or used except for clinical research (see Question 8).

Legislative Review 2013 Session

"Human rights don't assert themselves. Freedom doesn't preserve itself all alone and democracy doesn't succeed by itself"—German Chancellor Angela Merkel 1/30/13 commenting on the 80th anniversary of Hitler’s rise to power


The Vermont 2013 legislative session is under way. Practitioners and consumers who practice and utilize holistic and natural health care may be interested in the following proposed bills.

The following are in the House Health Care Committee. Listed below are the bill number, the purpose of the bill directly quoted, a link where you can download the “original version” to read the entire language (click on the bill number), and recommendations for actions.

Emails, letters and/or phone calls all make an impact. For those who need to find their representatives and senators and their contact information, you can search on the Vermont Legislature Web site.


H.12
This bill proposes to require health insurance plans, including Medicaid, to provide coverage for all health care services, including complementary and alternative treatments, if at least two studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals find such services to be safe, to be directly related to statistically significant improvements in individuals’ health status, and to reduce associated medical costs.

Support in theory. But urge the removal of or revision of the qualifier: “if at least two studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.”  For instance the case can be made that acupuncture, used for 5000 years, is safe and effective regardless of whether two peer reviewed articles claim it to be so.

H.114
This bill proposes to remove the religious and philosophical exemptions for immunization against pertussis and to require an adult working in a school or child care facility to keep his or her immunization against pertussis current.

Oppose.This bill and H.138 below are more restrictive versions of the bill last session which unsuccessfully tried to remove the philosophical exemption for school children. Last year’s bill was dramatically altered, resulting in an almost unanimous vote to maintain the philosophical exemption. Both H.114 and H.138 want to limit choice not just to parents but also to ALL people working in schools, whether paid or volunteer, stripping them of their right to informed consent. H.114 is focused on the pertussis vaccine—a vaccine that has failed. The State Health Department statistics show that 90-100% of those who contracted pertussis were vaccinated. The Health Department is not in favor of this bill after last’s years battle.

H.138
This bill proposes to suspend the philosophical and religious exemptions for a specific required vaccine if the immunization rate at a school for that vaccine falls below a 90 percent threshold.

Oppose. This bill and H.114 above are more restrictive versions of the bill last session which unsuccessfully tried to remove the philosophical exemption for school children. Last year’s bill was dramatically altered, resulting in an almost unanimous vote to maintain the philosophical exemption. Both H.114 and H.138 want to limit choice not just to parents but also to ALL people working in schools, whether paid or volunteer, stripping them of their right to informed consent. H.138 proposes a 90% “trigger” which limits the right to informed consent to medical procedures only to the first 10% who exercise it. As a constitutional lawyer will tell you, rights can not be qualified—you either have the right, or don’t. For example, the right to Freedom of Speech is not extended to only a certain percentage of the population, but to everyone.The “trigger” was attempted in last years bill to remove the philosophical exemption and it was rejected by the House.

H.224
This bill proposes to require the Green Mountain Care Board to include acupuncture as a covered service in Green Mountain Care.

Support. FABULOUS! hope that additional modalities are covered as well!