High-Fructose Corn Syrup is now´Corn Sugar´

New name, same poison.  People wake-up to the dangers of High-Fructose Corn Syrup and send consumption of products with the ingredient down to a 20-year low

AP

The makers of high fructose corn syrup want to sweeten its image with a new name: corn sugar. The Corn Refiners Association applied Tuesday to the federal government for permission to use the name on food labels. The group hopes a new name will ease confusion about the sweetener, which is used in soft drinks, bread, cereal and other products.

Americans’ consumption of corn syrup has fallen to a 20-year low on consumer concerns that it is more harmful or more likely to cause obesity than ordinary sugar, perceptions for which there is little scientific evidence.

However, some scientists have linked consumption of full-calorie soda — the vast majority of which is sweetened with high fructose corn syrup — to obesity.

The Food and Drug Administration could take two years to decide on the name, but that’s not stopping the industry from using the term now in advertising.

There’s a new online marketing campaign at http://www.cornsugar.com and on television. Two new commercials try to alleviate shopper confusion, showing people who say they now understand that “whether it’s corn sugar or cane sugar, your body can’t tell the difference. Sugar is sugar.”

Renaming products has succeeded before. For example, low eurcic acid rapeseed oil became much more popular after becoming “canola oil” in 1988. Prunes tried to shed a stodgy image by becoming “dried plums” in 2000.

The new name would help people understand the sweetener, said Audrae Erickson, president of the Washington-based group.

“It has been highly disparaged and highly misunderstood,” she said. She declined to say how much the campaign costs.

Sugar and high fructose corn syrup are nutritionally the same, and there’s no evidence that the sweetener is any worse for the body than sugar, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The bottom line is people should consume less of all sugars, Jacobson said.

“Soda pop sweetened with sugar is every bit as conducive to obesity as soda pop sweetened with high fructose corn syrup,” he said.

The American Medical Association says there’s not enough evidence yet to restrict the use of high fructose corn syrup, although it wants more research.

Still, Americans increasingly are blaming high fructose corn syrup and avoiding it. First lady Michelle Obama has said she does not want her daughters eating it.

Parents such as Joan Leib scan ingredient labels and will not buy anything with it. The mother of two in Somerville, Mass., has been avoiding the sweetener for about a year to reduce sweeteners in her family’s diet.

“I found it in things that you would never think needed it, or should have it,” said Leib, 36. “I found it in jars of pickles, in English muffins and bread. Why do we need extra sweeteners?”

Many companies are responding by removing it from their products. Last month, Sara Lee switched to sugar in two of its breads. Gatorade, Snapple and Hunt’s Ketchup very publicly switched to sugar in the past two years.

The average American ate 35.7 pounds of high fructose corn syrup last year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That’s down 21 percent from 45.4 pounds 10 years before.

Cane and beet sugar, meanwhile, have hovered around 44 pounds per person per year since the mid-1980s, after falling rapidly in the 1970s, when high fructose corn syrup — a cheaper alternative to sugar — gained favor with soft drink makers.

With sales falling in the U.S., the industry is growing in emerging markets like Mexico, and revenue has been steady at $3 billion to $4 billion a year, said Credit Suisse senior analyst Robert Moskow. There are five manufacturers in the U.S.: Archer Daniels Midland Inc., Corn Products International, Cargill, Roquette America, and Tate & Lyle.

Corn refiners say their new name better describes the sweetener.

“The name ‘corn sugar’ more accurately reflects the source of the food (corn), identifies the basic nature of the food (a sugar), and discloses the food’s function (a sweetener),” the petition said.

Will shoppers swallow the new name?

The public is skeptical, so the move will be met with criticism, said Tim Calkins, a marketing professor at Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University.

“This isn’t all that much different from any of the negative brands trying to embrace new brand names,” he said, adding the change is similar to what ValuJet — whose name was tarnished by a deadly crash in 1996 — did when it bought AirTran’s fleet and took on its name.

“They’re not saying this is a healthy vitamin, or health product,” he said. “They’re just trying to move away from the negative associations.”

Swimming in chlorinated pools can lead to cancer: study

Breitbart

Swimming in chlorinated pools can cause an increased risk of cancer in bathers, Spanish researchers said on Monday.

Researchers from the Barcelona-based Centre of Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL) and Research Institute Hospital del Mar studied changes in indicators of mutagenicity — permanent mutation of the DNA — among a group of swimmers in an indoor chlorinated pool.

“The evidence of genotoxic effects were observed in 49 healthy adults after swimming for 40 minutes in a chlorinated indoor pool,” CREAL said in a statement on Monday.

Researchers found indicators of an increase in cancer risk in healthy subjects as well as potential respiratory effects from the chlorine used as a disinfectant, the statement said.

The study was published on Sunday in the US journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

The co-director of CREAL, Manolis Kogevinas, said the findings should not put people off swimming.

“The positive health impacts of swimming can be increased by reducing the levels of these chemicals,” he said.

“In no case do we want to stop swimming, but to encourage the reduction of chemicals in swimming pools,” said Kogevinas, who suggested the problems caused by a reduction in levels of disinfectant could be offset if swimmers showered before taking a dip, wore bathing caps and refrained from urinating.

Adendum*

WHAT IS CHLORINE?

Chlorine is a poisonous, greenish-yellow gas described as having a choking odor. It is a very corrosive, hazardous chemical. Usually combined with other chemicals, it is used to disinfect water, purify metals, bleach wood pulp and make other chemicals.

Household bleach, used to whiten fabrics or remove mold from surfaces, is a 5% solution of a stabilized form of chlorine.

Do Not Mix household bleach with acid-containing or ammonia-containing cleaners. Dangerous levels of a very harmful gas can be released.

Most of the chlorine that enters lakes, streams, or soil evaporates into the air or combines with other chemicals into more stable compounds. Chlorine-containing chemicals that seep through soil down into groundwater can remain unchanged for many years.

HOW ARE PEOPLE EXPOSED TO CHLORINE?

Exposures to chlorine gas are usually due to industrial processes or accidental spills. Chlorine is added in small amounts to some municipal water supplies when bacteria contamination threatens public health. When chlorine combines with lake or river water, a class of chemicals that includes chloroform can be formed. (See chloroform fact sheet)

Breathing: Most high-level exposure occurs in workplaces where chlorine is used. People may inhale chlorine by using chlorine bleach or by living near an industry that uses chlorine.

The smell from treated drinking water or swimming pools may be irritating but isn’t usually harmful.

Drinking/Eating: Low level exposure can occur when water containing chlorine is used for drinking or for food preparation.

Touching: The body does not absorb chlorine well. However, small amounts can pass through the skin when people are exposed to chlorine gas, chlorine bleach, or bathing in water with high levels of chlorine. Lower levels of exposure can occur when people handle soil or water containing chlorine.

DO STANDARDS EXIST FOR REGULATING CHLORINE?

Water: The proposed federal drinking water standard for chlorine is 4 parts per million (ppm). Many city water supplies are treated with chlorine to reduce the possible spread of bacterial disease. The system operators are required to maintain a detectable level of chlorine in the piping system. We suggest you stop drinking water that contains more than 4 ppm of chlorine on a regular basis.

Air: No standards exist for the amount of chlorine allowed in the air of homes. We use a formula to convert workplace limits to home limits. Based on the formula, we recommend levels be no higher than 0.01 ppm of chlorine in air. Most people can smell chlorine when levels reach 0.02-3.4 ppm. If you can smell chlorine in your home, the level may be too high to be safe.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources regulates the amount of chlorine that can be released by industries.

WILL EXPOSURE TO CHLORINE RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?

Short-term, high-level exposures:

  • Immediately or shortly after exposure to 30 ppm or more of chlorine gas, a person may have chest pain, vomiting, coughing, difficulty breathing, or excess fluid in their lungs. Exposure to 430 ppm in air for 30 minutes will cause death.
  • The health effects of breathing air that has less than 30 ppm of chlorine are the same as listed below for inhaling liquid bleach vapors.
  • Liquid chlorine bleach and its vapors (at levels of 3-6 ppm in air) are irritating to eyes. At levels of 15 ppm in air people experience nose and throat irritation. Touching liquid chlorine bleach can cause skin irritation. Drinking levels over 4 ppm can cause throat and stomach irritation, nausea and vomiting.

Long-term, low-level exposure (e.g. several years of exposure to chlorine):

Organ Systems: The main effects of exposure to chlorine gas include diseases of the lung and tooth corrosion. People with previous lung disease, smokers, and those with breathing problems are more sensitive to chlorine.

Cancer: There is no information currently available about whether chlorine causes cancer.

Reproductive Effects: No reproductive effects from chlorine exposure have been reported.

In general, chemicals affect the same organ systems in all people who are exposed.

A person’s reaction depends on several things, including individual health, heredity, previous exposure to chemicals including medicines, and personal habits such as smoking or drinking.

It is also important to consider the length of exposure to the chemical; the amount of chemical exposure; and whether the chemical was inhaled, touched, or eaten. People with preexisting lung or heart disease may be particularly sensitive to the effects of chlorine.

CAN A MEDICAL TEST DETERMINE EXPOSURE TO CHLORINE?

By testing lung function and examining your skin and teeth, your doctor can evaluate the health effects of chlorine exposure.

Seek medical advice if you have any symptoms that you think may be related to chemical exposure.

*Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Vacuna con Virus Porcinos? Aprobada!

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
Mayo 20, 2010

Todos sabemos que cuando las cosas se adoptan en Inglaterra, son, tarde o temprano adoptadas en los Estados Unidos. Además, una vez aprobadas allí, rápidamente se abren camino a otras regiones del mundo. Bueno, la cuestión que preocupa aquí es que la Food and Drug Administration de los EE.UU. ha decidido dar un pase libre a vacunas envenenadas con virus porcino. Estas vacunas son inyectadas en niños a temprana edad.

Como lo habíamos informado antes, vacunas contra el rotavirus se encontraron contaminadas por un virus porcino. Este descubrimiento fue realizado por la misma FDA. El resultado de la investigación fue que la FDA decidió que el virus porcino no es perjudicial para los niños. Por lo tanto, la vacuna contra el rotavirus, producida por GlaxoSmithKline, seguirá siendo inyectada en los niños pequeños sin ningún tipo de análisis, estudio científico o suspensión temporal de la vacuna. La FDA no quiso analizar profundamente los efectos de este virus en los menores que son inyectados con la vacuna, y solo mantuvo una reunión para discutir lo que podría o no pasar “teoricamente.”

Según Reuters, la FDA concluyó que: “… era seguro para los médicos reanudar las vacunaciones con los pacientes usando Rotarix de Glaxo y continuar usando Rotateq de Merck. La agencia dijo que no había pruebas que la contaminación causaría ningún daño … “Esta conclusión se alcanzó a pesar de que la vacuna causa una enfermedad degenerativa en los cerdos bebés, causando diarrea intensa, pérdida de peso y otras dolencias.

A pesar de que ADN del virus fue encontrado en las células maestras utilizadas para producir la vacuna, el panel de asesores de la FDA dijo que el riesgo para la salud humana de la contaminación viral era sólo “teórica”. Claro, si la FDA simplemente ignora la pruebas de que la vacuna puede tener efectos no deseados en los que la usan, entonces es fácil decir que no hay daño!

Una vez más, las empresas farmacéuticas parecen operar como las compañías de alimentos.Las compañías de alimentos luchan casi a diario para evitar el etiquetado de productos modificados genéticamente porque esta etiqueta permitiría que las personas que han sido perjudicadas por los ingredientes encuentren el origen de su dolencia, trazen la conexión a los ingredientes GMO, publiquen y exijan que dichos componentes tóxicos en los productos alimenticios sean prohibidos. En el caso de la vacuna, la FDA decide ignorar las posibles causas de las complicaciones de salud sin estudiarlas, así que cuando un ser humano saludable aparece enfermo, se puede negar que la vacuna tuviera nada que ver con eso.

Está claro por qué esta vacuna no fue suspendida, y mucho menos estudiada. La vacuna contra elrotavirus proporcionó un billón de dólares a la industria farmacéutica el año pasado. ¿Puede usted imaginarse lo que significaría para ellos si una vacuna es suspendida? Es por eso que las empresas farmacéuticas a menudo supervisan su propio proceso de producción y estudios. Para ellos es normal que las personas se enfermen a consecuencia de la utilización de una vacuna y no hay necesidad de investigar. Y si se investiga, siempre tienen una negación plausible porque la FDA aprobó el medicamento. Por ejemplo, en el caso de la vacuna contra el virus H1N1, si las personas demandan a la compañía farmacéutica por daños y perjuicios, estas no pagarán un centavo ya que, según el acuerdo entre las grandes farmacéuticas y los Ministerios de Salud, las empresas farmacéuticas no pueden ser demandadas por daños y perjuicios originarios con esta vacuna. Entonces, ¿quién paga? El gobierno toma el dinero de impuestos para crear un fondo para financiar este asesinato legalizado.

Resto del mundo, ¡cuidado! Ahí les va una vacuna con virus porcino!

Vaccines with Pig Virus? Approved!

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 20, 2010

We all know that when things are adopted in England, they are sooner or later adopted in the United States.  Also, once adopted there, they rapidly make their way to other regions of the world.  Well, the issue of concern here is that the Food and Drug Administration of the U.S. has decided to give vaccines poisoned with pig viruses a pass.

As we had reported before, Rotavirus vaccines were found to be tainted with a pig virus.  This discovery had been made by the very same FDA.  The result of the investigation was that the FDA decided the pig virus is not harmful to children.  Therefore, the Rotavirus vaccine, produced by Glaxosmithkline, will continue to be injected into young children without any further analysis, study or recall of the vaccine.

According to Reuters, the FDA concluded that: “…it was safe for doctors to resume giving patients Glaxo’s Rotarix and continue using Merck’s Rotateq. The agency said there was no evidence the contamination caused any harm…”  This conclusion was reached even though the vaccine causes a wasting disease in baby pigs, causing intense diarrhea, loss of weight and other ailments.

Although DNA from the pig virus was found in the master cells utilized to produce the vaccine, the FDA’s advisory panel said the risk to human health from the viral contamination was only “theoretical.”  According to NaturalNews.com, if the FDA simply ignores the evidence the vaccine can have unwanted effects on those who use it, it is then easy to say there is no harm.

Once again, the pharmaceutical companies seem to operate like the food companies.  Food companies fight almost daily to avoid the labeling of GMO products because this labeling would allow people who are harmed by the ingredients to find the origin of their ailment, trace it to the GMO ingredients, publish it and demand the removal of such toxic components from the food products.  In the case of the vaccine, the FDA chooses to ignore the possible causes of the health complications without studying them, so when an unhealthy human appears, they can deny that the vaccine had nothing to do with it.

It is clear why this vaccine was not even recalled, much less studied.  The rotavirus vaccine provided around one billion dollars to the pharmaceutical industry last year.  Can you imagine what it would mean for them if a vaccine is recalled or suspended?  That is why the pharmaceutical companies often oversee their own production process and studies.  For them, sick people as a result of the use of a vaccine is normal and there is no need to investigate it.  And if it is investigated, they always have plausible deniability because the FDA approved the drug.  For example, in the case of the H1N1 vaccine, if people sue the pharmaceutical company for damages, they will not pay a cent because according to the agreement between big pharma and the Health and Human Services Department, pharmaceutical companies cannot be sued for damages originating with this vaccine.  So who pays?  The government takes tax money to create a fund to finance legalized murder.

Rest of the world, beware!  There is a pig virus vaccine on the way!

Compact Fluorescent Threats

Few People Know the Dirty Secret Compact Fluorescent Bulbs Keep

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 5, 2010

For many people, fluorescent light bulbs -those swirly compact wonders that everyone keeps pushing on you- are instruments foCFLr saving energy and money on the light bill every month. But for many users of those bulbs the results after exposing themselves to the bright light, has gone beyond what they expected. Instead of providing light to read a book or take on a chore at home, fluorescent light bulbs are the perpetrators of massive burns, irritation and skin rashes. These skin conditions have appeared after just 10 to 20-minute exposures to the bulbs’ radiation.

Besides the rashes and irritation, victims of the bulbs also blame them for headaches, lack of concentration, dizziness, and a general state of discomfort. The irritation varies in severity from person to person and it can appear in different places on the skin; from the arms to the legs, ears, neck and hands. Those who have experienced the consequences of the emissions from the bulbs concur that after they removed them from their homes, all the afflictions went away in a matter of days, or even hours.

A recent investigation carried out by a television news program called 16:9, brought out an unknown fact. The compact fluorescent bulbs emit ultraviolet radiation. That’s right, the same radiation found in solar rays. Scientists and consumer product protection agencies like Health Canada, studied the bulbs and discovered they are not sold with prismatic diffusers to filter the UV radiation that comes out of them. This is thought to be the cause of the rashes and other affections that the bulbs cause, especially on people with skin diseases.

The questions raised after realizing the bulbs give out UV radiation are how much of it do they emit, and could it be harmful enough to cause cancer? These two questions have not been answered by the agencies that are supposed to oversee consumer safety in North America, therefore there isn’t an official position. What there is, is a growing number of consumers who were mildly and severely ‘burned’ by the radiation that comes out of the bulbs. How did people come to this conclusion? Most of them had blood tests performed on them to rule out any kind of blood disease or skin condition, and in all cases the tests came out negative.

After months without any answers from the consumer protection agencies, the program 16:9 traveled to London, England, where government scientists studied the bulbs and reached the results everyone who uses the fluorescent bulbs is afraid to hear. Scientists found that from a random sample of bulbs, one of every five emitted high levels of UV radiation. The conclusion is that the mercury contained in the bulbs, which is needed for them to operate, is what creates the ultraviolet radiation blamed for the headaches, rashes and stains of people’s skin.

While fluorescent light bulbs are more and more common in every household, countries like Canada will ban the traditional incandescent ones by 2012, which will limit the options consumers have to illuminate their homes and offices. Andrew Lankfort, the head of a non-governmental consumer oriented agency in the United Kingdom, affirms that most studies have agreed that the bulbs’ radiation are the origin of blisters and irritation that people have experienced. Whether this radiation causes skin cancer or not, he says, “only time will tell”.

Despite the multiple complaints from consumers, no country has approved legislation that mandates the bulbs have a warning on their labels about the possibility of radiation originated skin conditions as well as headaches and dizziness. In the meantime, countries like Canada and the United Kingdom have made available compact fluorescent bulbs which are covered with a diffuser to limit the exposure to the UV radiation. Dermatologist Cheryl Rosen says that she recommends to her patients to reduce the distance and time of exposure to the bulbs and traditional fluorescent tubes that are used in office buildings. After being questioned by the production of the program 16:9, the three major producers of compact fluorescent bulbs -Phillips, Silvannia and General Electric- only commented that their bulbs meet industry standards and only Phillips admitted to be performing tests on the bulbs in order to determine their safety. A major concern for consumers is that there aren’t guidelines established by the governments when it comes to UV radiation safety, so even if the bulbs were harmful, the companies would not be braking any law.

But the findings reported by the program 16:9 did not end there. How about electromagnetic pollution? Yes, that is what makes the compact fluorescent bulbs even worse that previously thought. Studies by Dr. Magda Habbis a professional in electromagnetic energy, find that these bulbs emit almost ten times more electromagnetic waves than what is considered safe and normal. While and incandescent bulb shows 27 on the radio frequency meter, the compact one reaches 580. Electromagnetic pollution is that which comes from cellular phones, high tension electric wires, wireless Internet signals and other technology shown to cause electric imbalances in the human body. The high levels of electromagnetic energy emitted by the compact bulbs has earned a new name: ‘dirty energy’. One case is that of Larry Newman; Dr. Larry Newman, a neurologist at the Headache Institute of New York, who has suffered the consequences of ‘dirty energy’. Dr. Newman has seen the number of patients complaints over compact fluorescents increase alarmingly. “There is something about those bulbs that trigger my headaches,” Newman says. More and more of his patients are going back to the good old incandescent light bulbs.

Dr. Christine Lay, also a neurologist, has patients who changed all their compact fluorescent bulbs for the incandescent ones and experienced relief almost immediately. She says it will take action from consumers to obligate the makers of the bulbs investigate the consequences of continuous exposure to the bulbs and the possible links to skin conditions and even skin cancer. Kevin Burn, a former victim of the bulbs left his job and began testing his neighbors’ bulbs for electrical pollution. Mr. Burn says before changing the bulbs in his house, the pain was as bad as having arthritis. Some of his tests revealed that some bulbs emit up to 1000 volts and that energy, he says, goes right through people’s bodies. The closer one is to the bulb, the greater the exposure. Since the bulbs contain mercury, a well known neuro-toxine, those who intend to change their compact fluorescent bulbs must be careful not to break them and inhale the vapors contained in the bulb. Once taken from the sockets, they need to be taken to especial recycling facilities where proper disposal is done.

So what is a person to do if the industry bans the incandescent bulbs? There is another option in the market: LED, or Light Emitting Diods. These bulbs record safe energy emission levels and so far no complaints from users. Furthermore, they are even more efficient than the compact fluorescent bulbs.

Just as the compact bulbs, the LED ones are making a slow but sure appearance into the market, and although there are not available everywhere, it is expected consumers will bring them into the main stream just as they did with CFL’s.

Sources:

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=26990
http://www.residentiallighting.com/Can-sitting-too-close-to-a-CFL-cause-a-rash-article10833
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2004/2004_68-eng.php
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/home_journal_news/4217864.html
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/cheryl-rosen/5/894/a2
http://www.healthzone.ca/health/article/575275
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303163909
http://www.wehealny.org/headache/staff.html
http://www.wehealny.org/headache/about.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode