Filed under: biological warfare, bisphenol A, bottled water, BPA, cancer, canned food, CDC, Chemical Warfare, depopulation, EPA, Eugenics, fda, food contamination, food market, food poisoning, food safety, Genocide, health and environment, heart disease, obesity, phthalates, plastic, PVC, softkill, toxic earth, toxic environment, toxic food, toxicity | Tags: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, NHANES
New study confirms bisphenol A found in plastic is linked to heart disease
Natural News
January 19, 2010
According to the American Heart Association, cardiovascular disease is the number one killer in the U.S. Various forms of the disease take the lives of over 80 million Americans a year. And while we’ve all heard about the risk factors for cardiovascular disease — including smoking, being overweight, high cholesterol and lack of exercise — it appears it’s time to add bisphenol A, better known as BPA, to that list.
This chemical has been used for decades in polycarbonate plastic products including refillable drink containers, plastic eating utensils and baby bottles as well as the epoxy resins that line most food and soft-drink cans. Now a new study just published in the journal PLoS ONE provides the most compelling evidence so far that BPA exposure is dangerous to the cardiovascular system.
Using 2006 data from the US government’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), researchers from the Peninsula Medical School at the University of Exeter in the UK studied urinary BPA concentrations and found a significantly strong link between BPA exposure and heart disease. In 2008, these same scientists discovered that higher urinary BPA concentrations were associated with a long list of medical problems in adults, including liver dysfunction, diabetes and obesity. This research team was also the first to report evidence that BPA was linked to cardiovascular disease — and their new research offers further confirmation of a strong connection between BPA and heart ailments.
Despite the fact the new study found that urinary BPA concentrations were one third lower than those measured from 2003 to 2004, higher concentrations of BPA were still associated with heart disease. “This is only the second analysis of BPA in a large human population sample. It has allowed us to largely confirm our original analysis and exclude the possibility that our original findings were a statistical ‘blip’,” David Melzer, Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Peninsula Medical School and the research team leader, said in a statement to the media.
“We now need to investigate what causes these health risk associations in more detail and to clarify whether they are caused by BPA itself or by some other factor linked to BPA exposure. The risks associated with exposure to BPA may be small, but they are relevant to very large numbers of people. This information is important since it provides a great opportunity for intervention to reduce the risks,” added scientist Tamara Galloway, Professor of Ecotoxicology at the University of Exeter and senior author of the paper.
As NaturalNews has previously reported, BPA exposure has been shown in other studies to be associated with neurological problems (http://www.naturalnews.com/025801_B…), diabetes and aggressive behavior in little girls (http://www.naturalnews.com/027382_B…). Unfortunately, the FDA has demonstrated little ability or interest in taking decisive measures to protect consumers from this chemical (http://www.naturalnews.com/024593_t…).Your best strategy to avoid BPA? Eat natural, fresh foods and stay away from cans, bottles and other plastic containing products that are not certified BPA-free.
Filed under: bacterial warfare, biosolids, Eugenics, fda, food contamination, food poisoning, food safety, Genocide, health and environment, human waste, Population Control, scandal, toxic earth, toxic environment, toxic waste, toxicity | Tags: Soda Fountains
How Does Feces Get Into Soda Fountains?
Daily Bread
January 8, 2010
Nearly half of all the fast-food soda fountains tested in a recent study dispensed coliform bacteria—that’s feces, folks—along with the pop.
The study, published in the International Journal of Food Microbiology, is being widely picked up in the blogosphere today. I kept clicking from one blog to the next, but none of them raised what to me is the obvious question: How does the fecal material make its way into the soda?
CBS News wondered, too, but they asked “Dr. Alanna Levine, a primary care physician,” who, as far as I can tell, had nothing to do with the study and has no particular expertise on soda fountains. For what it’s worth, she said: “Contamination can occur from employees or customers failing to wash their hands properly and touch the machine. Also, bacteria can enter your drink if the soda fountain machine and/or its water lines aren’t cleaned properly.”
Levine said, “You can get collections of bacteria in the water line, and that then runs through the whole machine and gets into the beverage.”
OK. I still wonder how that level of contamination can occur, given that soda fountains are basically closed-loop systems. How often do people touch the area around where the soda is dispensed? And are that many machines really being contaminated by dirty employees changing out the dispensers and hoses? If so, most of those employees are also handling food, right? How different is this level of contamination from the levels in other public places, like movie theaters or high-end restaurants?
Only the abstract of the study is available online, and it doesn’t address these questions. I am making inquiries.
However the nasty bacteria is getting there, it might be causing “episodic gastric distress in the general population and could pose a more significant health risk to immunocompromised individuals,” say the authors, who hail from a couple of colleges in Virginia.
And worse: it’s not just coliform, but other “opportunistic pathogenic microorganisms.” And most of what they found is at least somewhat resistant to antibiotics.
Thirsty? Bacteria linked to feces found on soda fountains
If you’re chugging a soda from a fast food joint, you may want to put it down and read this.
A team of microbiologists from Hollins University found that 48% of the sodas they tested from fast food soda fountains had coliform bacteria, according to Tom Laskawy, a media and technology professional and blogger for grist.org.
Coliform is typically fecal in origin.
On top of that, the study found that most of the bacteria were resistant to antibiotics.
The team tested 90 beverages from 30 fountains, and published their findings in the International Journal of Food Microbiology.
Here is an excerpt from the abstract:
“…Coliform bacteria was detected in 48% of the beverages and 20% had a heterotrophic plate count greater than 500 cfu/ml. […] More than 11% of the beverages analyzed contained Escherichia coli [E. Coli] and over 17% contained Chryseobacterium meningosepticum. Other opportunistic pathogenic microorganisms isolated from the beverages included species of Klebsiella, Staphylococcus, Stenotrophomonas, Candida, and Serratia. Most of the identified bacteria showed resistance to one or more of the 11 antibiotics tested.”
Lawasky made sure to note that there has been only one recorded outbreak linked to soda fountains, and that was 10 years ago.
But, the bacteria could cause sickness that could go unreported and therefore never linked to soda fountains.
You can read the abstract or purchase the report here.
Filed under: amalgam, autism, Bio Weapons, biological warfare, bisphenol A, bottled water, BPA, brain damage, cancer, CDC, Chemical Warfare, darwin, depopulation, drinking water, EPA, Eugenics, fda, food contamination, food market, food poisoning, food safety, genetic engineering, Genocide, health and environment, medical industrial complex, Mercury, obesity, phthalates, plastic, Population Control, PVC, softkill, sterilization, tap water, tooth fillings, toxic earth, toxic environment, toxic food, toxicity, Vaccine, vaccine side effects | Tags: MTBE, PBDEs, PFOA, Polybrominated diphenyl ethers
Six Risky Chemicals You’re Carrying in Your Body
Dr. Mercola
January 7, 2010
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released its latest assessment of the chemicals people are carrying around in their bodies.
The biomonitoring study is the most comprehensive in the world, measuring 212 chemicals in the blood and urine of 8,000 Americans.
The CDC highlighted a few chemicals because they are both widespread — found in all or most people tested — and potentially harmful.
Here’s a look at what they are and how you can try to avoid them:
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers
- Better known as “flame retardants”, PBDEs are used widely in all sorts of goods to reduce fire risk. They also accumulate in human fat, and some studies suggest they may harm your liver and kidneys as well as your neurological system. Some states have restricted the use of certain PBDEs, but short of such bans, avoiding them is difficult because the chemicals are integrated into so many products.
Bisphenol A
- BPA, which is found in many plastics, in the lining of cans, and even coating many sales receipts, was found in more than 90 percent of Americans tested. The health concerns about BPA are many and growing. While BPA-free products are available, it can be difficult to find them unless you do research ahead of time.
PFOA
- PFOA and other perfluorinated chemicals are used to create heat-resistant and non-stick coatings on cookware, as well as grease-resistant food packaging and stain-resistant clothing. Studies have linked these chemicals to a range of health problems, including infertility in women, and to developmental and reproductive problems in lab animals. Avoiding products that contain them is a first step towards avoiding them.
Acrylamide
- Formed when carbohydrates are cooked at high temperatures (fried foods), acrylamide and its metabolites are extremely common in Americans. High-level exposure has caused cancer and neurological problems in lab animals and workers, respectively. Avoiding it in food comes down to food choice, storage and preparation.
Mercury
- The main source of mercury — a potent neurotoxin that can lead to permanent brain damage if young children or fetuses are exposed — continues to be contaminated fish. I do not recommend eating most fish for this reason (mercury is also found in amalgam tooth fillings and vaccines).
MTBE
- This gasoline additive has been phased out of use in the U.S. in favor of ethanol, but it still can be detected widely in American’s bodies; it has contaminated many drinking water supplies. Studies have linked it to a variety of potential problems, including neurological and reproductive damage.
Filed under: biological warfare, Chemical Warfare, chlorine, Eugenics, european union, fda, food ban, food contamination, food market, food poisoning, food safety, Genocide, health and environment, Russia, toxic earth, toxic environment, toxic food, toxicity, USDA
Russia Bans U.S. Poultry Treated With Chlorine
Food Safety News
January 7, 2010
With as much as 30,000 tons of American poultry in the pipeline to Russia, the government in Moscow imposed a ban on future U.S. poultry imports on New Year’s Day.
Russia joins the European Union in prohibiting the use of chlorine as an anti-microbial treatment in poultry production, which is commonly used in the United States.
As for birds in the pipeline, USA Poultry and Egg Export Council President Jim Summers said he thinks based on earlier assurances from the Russian Veterinary Service that poultry in transit will be allowed to enter.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture defended the use of chlorine by the American poultry industry.
“Since chlorine has been used as an anti-microbial treatment for more than 25 years, this resolution effectively blocks U.S. exports of poultry to Russia, has a devastating impact on the U.S. poultry industry and trade, and raised the costs of poultry products for Russia’s consumers,” says USDA spokeswoman Katie Gorscak.
She said there is overwhelming scientific evidence that chlorine is safe and effective as a disinfectant for poultry.
American poultry exports to Russia are the biggest component of U.S. agricultural exports to the former Soviet Union. Since the fall of the Iron Curtain, Russia has grown to become American’s tenth largest Ag export market for a total of $1.8 billion in 2008. Poultry was almost half of that amount.
Losing another near billion-worth of exports to Russia over chlorine comes as the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has also been unable to open the EU to U.S. poultry for the same issue. For trade disputes with the EU, complaints go to the World Trade Organization (WTO). But, Russia is not a member of WTO.
In 2009, Russia accepted poultry from the U.S. under a quota lowered from 2008 levels. Russia’s domestic poultry industry has improved greatly over the past few years, but experts say the country will still need U.S. birds to meet the demands of its consumers.
The EU ban on bathing chicken in chlorine has been in effect since 1997. The US-EU dispute was a test case for the Transatlantic Economic Council, which was formed in 2007 to facilitate trade and business between the two economies. A plan to end the ban was vetoed by EU veterinary experts.
The U.S. and Russia plan to hold technical talks over the chlorine issue. As written, there is more chlorine in most U.S. public water systems than Russia would allow for chicken baths.
Filed under: agriculture, biological warfare, cancer, Chemical Warfare, Child Abuse, city water, deception, DoA, drinking water, elite, establishment, eugenicists, Eugenics, fda, food contamination, food market, food poisoning, food safety, full-body scanners, Genocide, global elite, government crimes, government regulations, health and environment, internationalist, lobbyists, Mad Cow, nanny state, radiation, ruling class, softkill, toxic earth, toxic environment, toxicity, u.s. crops, USDA | Tags: Burger King, department of agriculture, fast food, health alert, junk food, McDonald’s, meat industry
U.S. Government Approves Treating Beef With Ammonia
NoWorldSystem
January 3, 2010
The New York Times forgot to mention that in the past, the USDA and FDA approved of injecting meat with carbon monoxide to keep rotten meat looking fresh, treating meat with viruses and even Oked the use of Mad Cow diseased beef into the food market just as long as it was mixed with 1% healthy beef.
The plan to inject ammonia into meat is just another toxic substance added to our daily intake that the government seems not to mind. The eugenicist elite that control the U.S. government know that stuff like this is bad for us and are purposely increasing the toxins in our environment. These are softkill methods of eugenics to cut the human population down by a ‘reasonable’ number, they use methods like; radiating us at airports, leaving drugs in the city water supply and using human sewage as fertilizer on major U.S. crops.
It should be painfully obvious now that the government doesn’t give a damn about you, the eugenicist elitists want you dead sooner than later because they look at ‘humans’ as a threat to the ‘ruling class’ clique, they consider us monsters that are unworthy of life. This is the real threat against humanity, not some patsy/terrorist crotch bomber. A decade from now we’ll all be wondering why people are dying at age 50 or 60.
New York Times
December 30, 2009
Eight years ago, federal officials were struggling to remove potentially deadly E. coli from hamburgers when an entrepreneurial company from South Dakota came up with a novel idea: injecting beef with ammonia.
The company, Beef Products Inc., had been looking to expand into the hamburger business with a product made from beef that included fatty trimmings the industry once relegated to pet food and cooking oil. The trimmings were particularly susceptible to contamination, but a study commissioned by the company showed that the ammonia process would kill E. coli as well as salmonella.
Officials at the United States Department of Agriculture endorsed the company’s ammonia treatment, and have said it destroys E. coli “to an undetectable level.” They decided it was so effective that in 2007, when the department began routine testing of meat used in hamburger sold to the general public, they exempted Beef Products.
With the U.S.D.A.’s stamp of approval, the company’s processed beef has become a mainstay in America’s hamburgers. McDonald’s, Burger King and other fast-food giants use it as a component in ground beef, as do grocery chains. The federal school lunch program used an estimated 5.5 million pounds of the processed beef last year alone.
But government and industry records obtained by The New York Times show that in testing for the school lunch program, E. coli and salmonella pathogens have been found dozens of times in Beef Products meat, challenging claims by the company and the U.S.D.A. about the effectiveness of the treatment. Since 2005, E. coli has been found 3 times and salmonella 48 times, including back-to-back incidents in August in which two 27,000-pound batches were found to be contaminated. The meat was caught before reaching lunch-rooms trays.
…
Carl S. Custer, a former U.S.D.A. microbiologist, said he and other scientists were concerned that the department had approved the treated beef for sale without obtaining independent validation of the potential safety risk. Another department microbiologist, Gerald Zirnstein, called the processed beef “pink slime” in a 2002 e-mail message to colleagues and said, “I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling.”
One of the toughest hurdles for Beef Products was the Agricultural Marketing Service, the U.S.D.A. division that buys food for school lunches. Officials cited complaints about the odor, and wrote in a 2002 memorandum that they had “to determine if the addition of ammonia to the product is in the best interest to A.M.S. from a quality standpoint.”
“It is our contention,” the memo added, “that product should be labeled accordingly.”
Represented by Dennis R. Johnson, a top lawyer and lobbyist for the meat industry, Beef Products prevailed on the question of whether ammonia should be listed as an ingredient, arguing that the government had just decided against requiring another company to list a chemical used in treating poultry.
School lunch officials said they ultimately agreed to use the treated meat because it shaved about 3 cents off the cost of making a pound of ground beef.
USDA serves pet food grade meat at public schools
FDA Is Urged to Ban Carbon-Monoxide-Treated Meat
Filed under: Child Abuse, education, education system, food poisoning, food safety, health and environment, public school, USDA | Tags: health alert, school food
USDA serves pet food grade meat at public schools
noworldsystem.com 