The Department of Homeland Security plans to build a high-risk virus research center in the heart of America

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is set to begin construction on a new high-risk bio-weapons research facility on the campus of Kansas State University in Manhattan, though critics say the decision is fraught with risk because of the potential for damage from nearby earthquake fault lines.
In a statement on its Web site, DHS said it needs the new facility to replace an aging one located at Greenport, N.Y. That facility, known as the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, has been in operation since 1954 and is nearing the end of its useful life.
According to the department, $54 million has been approved for the construction of the proposed National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility. The new facility will feature research on biolevel 3 and 4 viruses – some without any known cures – and other potentially dangerous materials, though department officials have downplayed any potential threats.
The problem, critics say, is the location and the inherent seismic and weather-related disasters that could befall the facility, wreaking havoc on the surrounding population and beyond – issues the government seems to be downplaying.
Painting lipstick on a pig
“The United States works on the frontline of livestock animal health research to defend against foreign animal, emerging, and zoonotic diseases that could threaten the U.S. livestock industry, food supply, and public health,” says Homeland Security Under Secretary for Science and Technology Tara O’Toole, in a departmental risk assessment posted online. “To address congressional requirements, this detailed, updated risk assessment reaffirms that we can build a safe and secure facility to meet this important mission.”
The department contends that, according to its risk analysis, “calculated risks have been significantly reduced by incorporating mitigation measures into the risk assessment and updating the analysis to allow for a cumulative risk calculation.”
In other words, DHS says it is prepared to adopt a facility design that includes “significant changes beyond the industry standard to reduce risk.” Reducing risk isn’t, of course, the same as eliminating it.
‘Groundbreaking’ facility?
All of this babble is, of course, designed to make us feel better about having a plant that conducts research on incurable viruses located smack dab in the middle of a volatile region of the country. What the department isn’t saying is that the part of Kansas being considered for this new facility is prone to a number of natural disasters and occurrences, each of which could cause considerable damage.
“Manhattan, Kansas, faces a number of worrisome hazards that should influence the architecture and construction of the BSL-4 laboratory. These hazards include flooding, dam failure, earthquakes, and tornadoes,” says an assessment by the Suburban Emergency Management Project (SEMP), located in Chicago.
The last time the region suffered major flood damage was in 1951, but, SEMP notes, the area is still in a flood plain and, given the record floods last summer in neighboring Missouri, the potential for disaster is there.
Also, SEMP notes that while “Kansas is not widely known as seismically active,” it “boasts the Humboldt fault zone, which underlies Turtle Creek dam and Manhattan,” a region the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has deemed a “localized seismic hot spot.”
“An estimated maximum earthquake magnitude of 6.6 could occur in the area of the Tuttle Creek dam, causing liquefaction of the foundation sand beneath the dam, large deformations of the dam, and dam failure,” said SEMP’s assessment of the proposed new biodefense facility. “The consequences of a breach of the Tuttle Creek dam include rushing water at 381,000 cubic feet/second (six times the rate in 1993) moving toward a population at risk of 13,000 people.”
In addition, the area is known for its tornadoes. According to the Oklahoma Climatological Survey, the region in and around the proposed site features an average of five to seven tornadoes a year.
“Riley County, Kansas, home to Manhattan, is well known for tornado touchdowns. For example, on June 11, 2008, Manhattan sustained extensive damages but no injuries when an F4 nighttime tornado ripped through it,” said the SEMP assessment.
Sources for this article include:

Most superbugs are started on animal farms (your food supply)

The growing emergence and prevalence of antibiotic-resistant superbugs capable of killing humans was not always the gravely serious problem it is today, as some of these deadly strains actually originated as benign pathogens in humans. But the widespread practice of feeding antibiotics to livestock living on factory farms is at least one of the primary triggers that has caused these once-harmless bacterial strains to become vicious killers.
A recent study published in the American Society for Microbiology journal mBio explains how the infamous methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) superbug strain CC398, for instance, appears to have actually originated as a type of harmless probiotic in the body known as methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA). According to Lance Price and his colleagues, MSSA morphed into deadly MRSA as a result of migration into livestock being fed excessive amounts of antibiotics.
“Modern food animal production is characterized by densely concentrated animals and routine antibiotic use, which may facilitate the emergence of novel antibiotic-resistant zoonotic pathogens,” write the authors in their paper. “Our findings strongly support the idea that livestock-associated MRSA CC398 originated as MSSA in humans” (http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/1/e00305-11).
Factory farmers commonly feed antibiotics like tetracycline and methicillin to their livestock, poultry, and even fish, in order to make them grow faster. These drugs also help mitigate the filth-induced disease that is part and parcel of the factory food system, which confines animals in unsanitary living conditions and summons them to unnatural diets that cause them to develop frequent infections (http://www.naturalnews.com/028031_antibiotics_infections.html).
Various environmental and public health groups have repeatedly tried to convince the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to properly regulate the use of antibiotics in animal feed, but the agency has continually refused. Even after a lawsuit was filed against it last summer, the FDA quietly reversed a previous promise to begin regulating antibiotics, and conveniently published an announcement about this right during the Christmas season when few were paying attention (http://www.guardian.co.uk).
In January, however, the FDA did finally decide to protect some antibiotics from becoming useless by prohibiting their use in livestock, but these particular drugs represent a measly 0.2% of those typically used on factory farms anyway, according to New Scientists. So as it stands, superbug-producing factory farms are free to continue churning out deadly pathogens while the FDA pretends that everything is just fine.
Sources for this article include:

Just one soda per day can cause heart attacks in men

You have no doubt heard that sugary, high-fructose soda is a major contributing factor to the nation’s ever-growing waistline, but new research indicates that even in moderation, drinking just one soda a day is a major health risk, especially for men.
According to a new study published in the medical journal Circulation, a daily soda increases your heart risk, even if it’s not leading to much weight gain.
The ingestion of such high concentrations of sugar “appears to be an independent risk factor for heart disease,” says the study’s lead author Frank Hu, M.D., a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), in Boston.
“Continually subjecting our bodies to high amounts of glucose, to high blood sugar levels that trigger large secretions of insulin results in stresses that in the long run show up as high risk of heart disease and diabetes,” the study’s co-author, Dr. Walter Willett, told CBS News.
The study tracked 42,833 men over 22 years, following their diet, weight, smoking and exercise patterns. In the end, researchers discovered that men who drank a single 12-ounce soda per day increased their risk of heart attack by 20 percent.
So much sugar, so little time
The researchers said a typical 12-ounce soda contains a whopping 10 teaspoons of sugar, which is a very large amount over a relatively short period of time. But they also said the study didn’t necessarily confirm that sugar itself was to blame.
“It’s very likely people who choose to drink sugared soft drinks actually have a variety of health habits that are not heart healthy, and it may well be those health habits that are responsible for the increase in risk,” Willett said.
Still, the data was enough to confirm what scientists, dieticians, nutritionists and researchers have known for years.
“We already know that sugary beverages are associated with increased obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other metabolic issues,” Hu said. “This adds further evidence that sugary beverages are detrimental to our health.”
Harmful effects of so much sugar
Sugar in excess is a major contributor to obesity. Researchers noticed that many people were reducing fat intake but either increased their intake of sugar or did not appreciably decrease it, leaving them scratching their heads as to why they were not dropping any weight.
But it is the primary culprit in other disease processes as well.
“Sugary beverages also are believed to promote inflammation, an immune-system response involved in both heart disease and insulin resistance, a major risk factor for type 2 diabetes,” CNN reported, citing the Hu-Willett study, adding that sugary drinks increase belly fat, which can also increase a man’s heart attack risk.
During the study, blood samples were taken from about 40 percent of men. The findings: “Men who consumed sugary beverages at least once a day had higher triglyceride levels, lower HDL levels, and higher levels of a marker of inflammation known as C-reactive protein (CRP),” said CNN. “They also had higher levels of leptin, a hormone that helps regulate metabolism.”
The consumption of so much sugar – from soda and a wealth of other sources – as well as other high-fat, high-calorie processed foods, has led to record-high obesity rates, both among adults and children. The Centers for Disease Control estimated in 2010 that 34 percent of U.S. adults were obese, more than double the percentage 30 years ago. Meanwhile, the share of children who are obese – 17 percent – has tripled.
Some experts have hailed the fact that, only recently, the nation’s beltline seems to have stopped growing. But others say that until it begins shrinking, we shouldn’t be patting ourselves on the back.
“Until we see rates improving, not just staying the same, we can’t have any confidence that our lifestyle has improved,” Dr. David Ludwig, director of the Optimal Weight for Life Program at Children’s Hospital Boston, told The New York Times.
Sources for this article include:

Study: Bt toxin in GM crops kills non-target species

A new study out of Switzerland confirms once again that Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin, the nefarious pesticide produced by certain genetically-modified (GM) crops, is harming non-target species. Published in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, the study reveals that two-spotted ladybird (Adalia bipunctata L.) larvae exposed to Bt toxin experience a much higher mortality rate than those not exposed (http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/10/abstract).
Contrary to repeated claims made by Monsanto and other biotechnology industry players about the supposed safety of Bt toxin for non-target species, this new independent study reveals otherwise. It also exposes the illegitimacy of the various industry-funded studies that claim Bt toxin is safe for non-target species, including humans, an unfounded claim that has been proven false time and time again.
The new research, conducted by Dr. Angelika Hilbeck and her colleagues from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, was actually a follow-up to previous research on ladybird larvae and Bt toxin conducted back in 2009. Pro-GM talking heads had tried, but failed, to discredit this earlier research, which was published in the journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (http://www.springerlink.com/content/4317km7733582u32/).

Independent research consistently demonstrates dangers of GMOs

But Dr. Hilbeck’s new study, which was not funded by the pro-GM lobby, confirmed the findings of the 2009 study. And in the interest of promoting sound science, she and various others who recognize the very real dangers associated with GM crops, and Bt toxin in particular, are now calling out those who continue to deny reality by insisting that Bt toxin is safe.
“It is time to move beyond the rather ‘dogmatic denial’ and ‘shooting the messenger’ stages of the debate and onto the more mature stage of scientific discourse where a meaningful examination of scientific ‘surprises’ dominates the discussion,” said David Gee, a senior science adviser on science, policy, and emerging issues to the European Environmental Agency (EAE) recently.
The EAE, of course, has formed many of its GMO policies based on flawed, industry-funded GMO studies. So Gee and others are urging the agency to begin looking at independent research on GMOs, which tells a far different story than the one being peddled by the likes of Monsanto and the pro-GM American government.
“We do not need biosafety research embedded in the visions of the biotechnology industry that supports unsustainable industrialized agriculture,” added Professor Brian Wynne from the U.K. Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics at Lancaster University. “Instead, we need independent research like Hilbeck’s which assesses the specific environmental effects of genetic engineering, uses sensitive methodologies and helps indicate the potentially damaging effects on biodiversity as well as on agricultural diversity, of the industrial production systems which GM agriculture only intensifies.”

Aspartame withdrawal and side effects explained

If you have been drinking diet soda and chewing gum, chances are you have been enjoying aspartame in generous quantities. Aspartame is a popular sugar substitute that can be found in diet soda drinks, chewing gum, fruit spreads and sugar-free products to name a few. It is also known by the brand names, Sweet One, NutraSweet and Spoonful. Despite its popularity in the market, what many do not know is that aspartame accounts for 75 percent of side effect complaints received by the Adverse Reaction Monitoring System (ARMS) of the US Food and Drug Administration.

Can aspartame be addictive?

Yes, according to Dr. Betty Martini, popular anti-aspartame advocate. She explains that it is an “addictive, exitoneurotic, carcinogenic, genetically engineered drug and adjuvant that damages the mitochondria.” Moreover, Dr. Janet Hall, another famous advocate against aspartame, shares on her website that all artificial sweeteners create an artificial need for more sweetness. She goes on to add that forced sweetness, being a class of altered food, is a trap that cause people to become addicted to sweeter tasting food with no nutritional value.
Recent studies have shown that aspartame is addictive because it affects the absorption of dopamine in the brain.

Side Effects of Aspartame

Aspartame is made up of 3 components: phenylalanine, aspartic acid and methanol. Understanding the effects of aspartame will require us to look into its genetic make up.
In its website, manufacturers of aspartame continue to assure the public that low-calorie sweeteners are effective for weight reduction, weight maintenance, reduction of tooth decay, management of diabetes and reduction of risks associated with obesity. They claim that consumers of low-calorie, sugar-free beverages were able to incorporate these products into a healthy lifestyle not because they need to manage their weight (since a majority of people use low-calorie foods and beverages for reasons other than dieting) but because use of low-calorie products is part of a healthy lifestyle.
Despite the benefits cited in the aspartame website, independent studies have been shown that aspartame is not as safe as it appears to be. In a recent study conducted by researchers from the University Of Miami Miller School Of Medicine and at Columbia University Medical Center, it was discovered that those who drank diet soft drinks on a daily basis were more likely to contract vascular diseases compared to those who took none.
Supporters of aspartame insist that aspartic acid and phenylalanine are found in many foods. What they have conveniently left out, however, is that the said neurotoxins are harmless only when consumed with other nutrients like fats, amino acids (protein) and carbohydrates. On their own, they are absorbed by the nervous system in large concentrations causing the stimulation of brain neurons and cell death. Symptoms of the conditions include headaches, confusion, balance problems and seizures.
Methanol, on the other hand, is also a highly toxic substance. It is released in the small intestine gradually with the assistance of chymotrypsin and then broken down into formaldehyde: a chemical used for embalming which is a carcinogen that causes birth defects, retinal damage and DNA replication.
Again, supporters of aspartame insist that methanol is safe because it is found in vegetables and fruit juices. What they neglect to mention, however, is that methanol in vegetables and fruit juices is bound with pectin and the body does not possess the digestive enzyme to break down pectin and release ethanol into the body. Furthermore, ethanol, the methanol toxicity antidote, is found in natural sources of methanol, inhibiting the metabolism of methanol and giving the body sufficient time, through the lungs and kidneys, to clear it. Methanol found in aspartame is easily absorbed because it is in a free form.
Aspartic acid, methanol and phenylalanine and their breakdown in the body are cumulative because of their fast absorption and slow excretion.
In 1984, studies conducted revealed that the toxicity of NutraSweet (aspartame) to living organisms. The State of Arizona arrived at findings which showed that aspartame in carbonated drinks can break down into free methanol in temperatures of 99 degrees Fahrenheit. On May 13, 1998, the University of Barcelonaalso arrived at results revealing that aspartame was transformed into formaldehyde in the bodies of living creatures, and on later examination formaldehyde had spread through the vital parts of the body.

“Artificial sweetener disease”

The US Food and Drug Administration has received reports of 92 medical health problems resulting from aspartame, ranging from abdominal pain to migraines, dizziness and hives. Aspartame poisoning is often misdiagnosed because its symptoms mock other syndromes. It changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, lowering or blocking levels of hormones like dopamine and tyrosine that are necessary for bodily function.
Since aspartame cannot be detected through lab tests and x-rays, these diseases and disorders may actually be a toxic load. Below are some specific health conditions that are associated with aspartame you might want to recall next time you open a can of diet soda:
1. CancerThe Ramazzine Foundation, a European Cancer Research Center, conducted a study on aspartame which revealed that aspartame increases the risk of cancers (lymphoma, leukemia and breast cancers). Despite the National Cancer Institute‘s stand that no such connection was ever firmly established between aspartame and cancer, it might well be worth thinking that what is harmful to rats is also harmful to humans. Moreover, the dismissive stand of regulatory bodies concerning aspartame is merely based on the absence of data that can conclusively support such a connection and NOT on a finding that establishes that aspartame does not cause cancer.
2. Mental disorders and degeneration of brain cells – Excessive ingestion of artificial sweeteners, according to researchers from the University of Praetoria and the University of Limpopo, may lead to various mental disorders and the degeneration of the brain. Publishing in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers noted that aspartame appeared to cause excessive signals, damage and even death to nerve cells. Since aspartame disrupts the functioning of the cell’s energy source, it will lead to a cascade of effects on the whole system.
3. Headaches – As early as 1994, a study conducted published on PubMed.gov showed that ingestion of aspartame was associated with headaches. Subjects in the study revealed that they experienced headaches 33 percent of the time when taking aspartame compared to 24 percent when on placebo treatment. Moreover, Dr. Robert Milne and Blake More in their book “Headaches” report that headaches are the most reported side effect given by those who take products containing aspartame. They add that in a University of Parkinson‘s at Florida study, it was found out that the incidences of migraines doubled for a majority of test subjects who took aspartame. Their headaches lasted longer and were marked by significant signs of shakiness and diminished vision.
4. Weight gain and increased blood sugar – Aspartame is not a healthy alternative for diabetics or those wanting to lose weight. Contrary to popular belief, a recent study has shown that regular consumption of diet soft drinks is strongly connected with abdominal obesity and that aspartame can increase blood sugar. Researchers from the University of Texas Health Center San Antonio reported in a study that, as a group, 70 percent of those who drank diet soft drinks gained weight as opposed to those who did not. Moreover, those who drank 2 or more diet sodas regularly experienced an increase in their waist circumference by 500 percent more than those who did not drink them.
In another related study that analyzed a possible relationship between intake of aspartame and fasting glucose and insulin levels among 40 diabetes-prone mice, one of the researchers in the study, Dr. Gabriel Fernandes, revealed that heavy aspartame exposure might potentially contribute to the associations noticed between soda consumption and the risk of diabetes in humans.
The above health conditions are just some of the 92 reported medical health problems reportedly associated with aspartame. Despite the stand of aspartame manufacturers that their product has been declared safe for human consumption, it is still strange that there are still reports from sectors who do not stand to benefit from such declarations that aspartame is not safe. Prudence would dictate that avoiding a product may be better in the long run than to discover firsthand that all that was said about it was true. Why? Because you happen to be living proof of it.

How to protect yourself

To keep yourself safe from contracting “artificial sweetener syndrome,” it is suggested that you stop taking all products containing this chemical.
If you have brought or stocked up on products containing aspartame, you can arrange to return the products so you can get a refund of your money. If you feel that you may need professional help in getting over the disease, please see your doctor as soon as possible. Take a proactive approach to being healthy.
Finally, for those taking aspartame simply because they want to observe a healthy diet, replace your aspartame habit with real sugar. Although it may have more calories, it offers a far better solution than being poisoned. Those who want to manage their weight problems are advised to seek a healthier course of action like eating more whole foods, vegetables and fruits and getting regular exercise. True and sustainable weight loss cannot be achieved through a quick fix without a change in lifestyle. Set a personal example to be healthy and watch yourself regain your life.
Sources for this article

NutraSweet Company brags about the second coming of aspartame: Neotame now taking over world markets

When the NutraSweet Company first began petitioning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve aspartame as a food additive back in the early 1970s, it had every intention of conniving its way to success by whatever means possible. Today, after successfully getting aspartame approved and widely accepted around the world with flawed studies and behind-the-scenes manipulation, NutraSweet has once again done the same thing with a new chemical sweetener known as neotame, which is currently approved for use in food without even having to be labeled.
As we reported on recently, neotame was approved by the FDA back in 2002 without so much as a single conclusive, independent study proving its safety for human consumption. And yet the agency gave its full blessing not only to neotame’s approval for use in food, but also for its unlabeled use — as far as we know, not a single food product currently sold in the U.S. indicates that it contains neotame (http://www.naturalnews.com/034915_neotame_Monsanto_sweeteners.html).
Two years before the FDA approved neotame, the Monsanto Co. sold the NutraSweet Co. to J.W. Childs Equity Partners II, L.P., a private equity firm that also own the Sunny Delight Beverage Co. and Mattress Firm, among other companies. At the time of this purchase, NutraSweet issued a press release bragging about how neotame would drastically change the sweetener industry, even though it had not yet been approved for use.
Commenting on the company’s plans for neotame, Nick E. Rosa, a former senior vice president at Monsanto who was given the position of president and CEO of NutraSweet at the time the company transferred ownership to J.W. Childs, had this to say:
“The NutraSweet Company revolutionized the sweetener industry in 1981 with the introduction of aspartame, and we intend to do it again with neotame when we receive approval from various regulatory agencies around the world.”
Just as predicted, NutraSweet strong-armed FDA approval for neotame in the U.S. in 2002, and quickly expanded approval to at least 69 other countries in the following decade. But the company presumably still has a lot of work to do if it hopes to bring neotame to the same level as aspartame, which is sold in more than 100 countries and used in more than 5,000 consumers products used by 250 million people worldwide.
As detrimental as aspartame is to health, neotame is potentially far worse. Like aspartame, it is linked to severe neurotoxic and immunotoxic damage because it metabolizes into toxic formaldehyde and other toxic substances. And because it is unlabeled, the general public is unable to self-regulate consumption levels.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.nutrasweet.com/media/index.asp
http://www.naturalnews.com/028151_aspartame_sweeteners.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/035016_aspartame_neotame_NutraSweet.html#ixzz1mxqc1Lcf

Artificial hamburger meat successfully grown in vat of bovine fetal cells; You want some fries with that?

I’m not sure which is the more offensive way to create meat. There’s the current “factory farm” method where masses of hormone-jacked, antibiotics-injected cows are kept confined in what can only be called bovine concentration camps while they’re fed genetically modified corn, then slaughtered without compassion and subjected to diabolical meat-harvesting machinery that turns a cow carcass into corporate profits. On the other hand, there’s the new method being touted across the media: Test tube hamburgers made from thin strips of meat grown in a nutrient vat laced with bovine fetus stem cells. Yumm!
The test tube meat strips actually pulsate and twitch during their laboratory growth phase, by the way, and they’re ultimately ground up with strips of test tube fat grown in a similar way to produce a fatty hamburger-like substance. This has been accomplished by Professor Mark Post of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, who announced his team’s results at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)yesterday.

Test tube meat is here to save the world!

“In October we are going to provide a proof of concept showing out of stem cells we can make a product that looks, feels and hopefully tastes like meat,” says Mark Post at the announcement (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9091628/Test-tube-ham…). Of course, what does processed meat actually taste like anyway? MSG, sodium nitrite and processed salt, for the most part. So making lab-grown meat taste like today’s factory-processed meat only requires the injection of a few additives into the growth culture. Imagine growing meat patties with MSG inside every cell!
Creating one hamburger will require 3,000 strips of meat, each just half a millimeter thick and grown in laboratory vats. Unlike a cow, which requires roughly two years to grow to the point of slaughter, a test tube burger can be produced in just six weeks.
The “benefits” of test tube hamburger production are being touted as substantial, including:
• More efficient conversion of plants to meat. • Less environmental damage. • More humane than killing animals. • Is the only feasible way to feed more meat to the world.
Of course, they also said that GMOs would “feed the world.” Bill Gates calls genetically modified foods “high-tech agriculture” now, with the strong implication that technology is always superior to Mother Nature (http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=1EE22C52BA26FA296CFC8A0361571555). But I’m not so sure about that. In fact, this whole thing sounds more than a little creepy to me.

Test tube meat to feed the masses? Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

I’m skeptical any time technology claims to out-perform nature. Look what they’ve done with GMOs, chemical pesticides, vaccines, or nuclear power. In almost every case where “scientific progress” is touted as the solution for humankind, it ends up creating a nightmare that’s far worse than the problem it was trying to solve.
For the record, I choose not to eat cow meat. I’m not a vegetarian, but I’ve been around lots of cows on farms, and I see cows as conscious, aware mammals who have memories, emotions, families and social structure. They are every bit as intelligent as horses, and most people would cringe at the idea of eating a horse burger.
However, in a survival situation, I would have no hesitation eating grass-fed beef if it were from a healthy farm source. In fact, my personal supply of preparedness foods consists of several bags of USDA organic grass-fed beef jerky made without MSG or sodium nitrite.
But when it comes to growing hamburgers out of stem cells in a petri dish, the whole thing just smacks a little too much of soylent green. How are we to know what they really put in the nutrient solution? Maybe it contains growth hormones to speed production. Maybe it’s loaded with synthetic chemical vitamins instead of natural vitamins. Maybe it’s contaminated with Prozac or fluoride to make us all feel happy and oblivious while we eat synthetic meat. How are we to know what they do with it?

Artificial meat monstrosity

And then, of course, it’s only a matter of time before they start to genetically modify the test tube meat, perhaps using selected genes from the human genetic code to make the end product is more compatible with human biology while avoiding any risk of allergies. So then what do we have? Hybrid bovine / human meat.
…and a world full of cannibals who are eating something that’s partially human flesh.
See, modern science has already proven itself to be a pathetic collection of truly insane megalomaniacs who will gladly splice the genes of animals and insects into crops so that they can create vaccine crops, or vaccine-carrying mosquitoes, or goats that produce spider silk, or some other kind of monstrosity that serves the power-tripping globalists.
And the marvel of modern-day fast food has already proven that people will eat anything marketed to them as food. Case in point? Chicken McNuggets. That’s a hodge podge of industrial chemicals and so-called mechanically-separated chicken, which itself is a meat processing freak show. (http://www.naturalnews.com/032820_Chicken_McNuggets_ingredients.html)
So I guess if you set up a test tube meat lab, splice together a bunch of genes from various species (humans, cows, dogs, insects, ogres, possums and Janet Napolitano) and then grow a vat of some sort of convulsing fibrous tissue that can be made into a 99-cent hamburger, then the great masses will eat it! Who cares what the tissues are floating in, right? As long as it’s offered with a combo meal that includes French fries and an aspartame-laced Diet Coke, people will chug it straight down while watching NBA games and declaring, “We’re winning!”
No doubt test tube hamburger makers will tout their meat as being “Cruelty Free” by saying “No animals were killed in the harvesting of this meat.” Maybe not, but how many humans will be killed in the consumption of it?

A mysterious financial supporter backs the entire thing

By the way, this whole freak show of artificial meat production is being financed by an “…anonymous and extremely wealthy benefactor who Prof Post claims is a household name with a reputation for ‘turning everything into gold’.”
I wouldn’t be surprised at all to learn that Bill Gates was behind it — or someone similarly motivated by a global depopulation agenda.
Bottom line: Artificial meat may be an extraordinary idea, but given the total lack of ethics found in the scientific community today, I wouldn’t trust these people any farther than I could hurl a cow chip.

Teen girl rushed to hospital for eating nothing but chicken nuggets for 15 years

If you ate only McDonald’s chicken McNuggets every day for practically every meal, what do you think your health condition would be like in 15 years? One British girl, 17-year-old Stacey Irvine, recently found out the hard way that such a diet severely destroyed her health when she was rushed to the hospital after collapsing and having severe difficulty breathing.
Yahoo! News reports that the young factory worker had been eating practically nothing else besides McDonald’s chicken McNuggets since she was about two years old. Shockingly, Stacey has also never once eaten a single fruit or vegetable, according to the same report, which has left her grossly deficient in practically every single vitamin and mineral in existence.
This horrific diet finally caught up with Stacey, however, when she fell over at work and had to be rushed to the emergency room. Doctors discovered severely-swelled veins on the young girl’s tongue, and quickly diagnosed her with anemia. They subsequently put her on an “emergency vitamin regimen,” according to reports, and warned her that if she does not change her dietary habits, she will soon die.
But Stacey’s addiction to fast food nuggets is so severe that she still apparently refuses to eat anything else besides them, except for the occasional piece of toast or potato chips. And Stacey’s mom, Evonne, has apparently tried everything to get her daughter to eat other foods, including starving the girl at one point, but to no avail.
“She’s been told in no uncertain terms that she’ll die if she carries on like this,” Evonne is quoted as saying by CBS News. “But she says she can’t eat anything else. I’m at my wit’s end. I’m praying she can be helped before it’s too late.”
McDonald’s chicken McNuggets, of course, are made from a so-called food product called “mechanically separated chicken,” which is created from chickens that have been “stripped down to the bone, and then ‘ground up’ into a chicken mash, then combined with a variety of stabilizers and preservatives, pressed into familiar shapes, breaded and deep fried, freeze dried, and then shipped to a McDonald’s near you.”
You can see a horrifying picture of mechanically separated chicken at the following link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com
McDonald’s chicken McNuggets also contain dimethylpolysiloxane, an antifoaming agent composed of the same silicone chemicals used in cosmetic products (http://www.naturalnews.com/032820_Chicken_McNuggets_ingredients.html). A federal judge put it well back in 2003 when he called McNuggets a “McFrankenstein creation of various elements not utilized by the home cook.”

Marketing of fast foods (and all other marketing also)

We are bombarded with advertising all day, and if thats not bad enough we often get the catchy tunes stuck in our heads and most probably even dream adverts.
Most advertising bases itself on your own unhappyness and always promises to bring you happyness, make you more atractive, make people notice you etc etc etc. It basicly makes you feel incomplete and worthless untill you buy the item being pushed upon you.
Not only this but they also even employ psychologists to better manipulate the masses into buying their products.

In short there is nothing you can’t do for yourself, you don’t need a “profesional” to do it for you, they use big words to sound like they know more but anyone can learn these words, you are not inadequate you can do anything you just have to believe in yourself!!

New Zealand (NZ) continues to be saturated by research documenting the presence of overweight and obesity in adults and children, and by research looking at the serious impacts of these conditions on individual and population health.

(Non)regulation of marketing of unhealthy food to children in New Zealand

http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/122-1288/3431/

Fast Food Advertising – What’s Wrong WIth it?

Fast Food and QSR Advertising Are missing ONE key element…

Fast Food Advertising Leverage - Your TrafficSince the beginning, all fast food locations and QSR establishments are missing the single most powerful lever available to them: They fail to marketing optimally to the tens of thousands of people who pass the front door. Now, I didn’t say they don’t try, and I didn’t say they don’t marketing to them. I just said ‘not optimally’.
Stop and think about it: What is the biggest cost of ANY fast food location: traffic. Wait a sec, you say! No, there are so many other costs… Listen and think: When you list all of the investments you make on a monthly basis, they ALL come down to you having all of those ‘things’ (food, tables, utensils, condiments, ovens, shake machines, etc..) IN FRONT OF TRAFFIC!!
What is the ONE THING that makes any QSR location great? It’s traffic. It’s the tens of thousands of people passing the front door every 24 hours. So my question is ‘What is the best way to capitalize on THAT TRAFFIC’? In fact, I’m saying that this is the most important question you’ll ever ask. Watch the QSR Marketing video below. (You’re about to see the most effective of all fast food marketing ideas in history…)
_____________________________________________________________________________
In a discussion paper, Waikato District Health Board’s Population Health service has accused exhausting marketing gimmicks of fast foods for triggering type 2 diabetes and obesity in a large number of people.In the discussion paper entitled “Obesity, diabetes and fast food – the impact of marketing to children”, the authorities concerned looked over the issues like sedentary lifestyle and lack of physical exercise, which has triggered obesogenic environments.

The author of the paper, Nick Chester, said that the aim of the paper to make the authorities think as to how they can turn obesogenic environment into healthy environment. It has been found that the marketing firms are targeting children by exposing them to luxurious ads of soft drinks and fast food.

Previously, the advertisement firms were criticized for using internet for attracting kids. Daily intake of fast foods and energy drinks leads to higher chances or risk of developing type 2 diabetes and obesity. A survey conducted in 2006-2007 found that about 70% of the kids in the age group of 2 to 14 years consume fast food at least for once in a weak.

However, 7% of the children consume fast food frequently in a week. The figures clearly show that in the New Zealand, consumption of fast food is quite frequent. It has been informed that there are a large number of fast food chains located at places like Waikato.

Although the number of fast food chains is high in number, the promotional ads further contribute in attracting children to fast food. It is not feasible to ask fast food chain to close down the production of fast foods. But a control over the advertisement gimmicks chosen by the manufacturer can play vital role in reducing obesity cases.

http://topnews.net.nz/content/220855-marketing-gimmicks-fast-food-manufacturers-under-scanner

______________________________________________________________________________

CONSUMER BEHAVIOR:     THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MARKETING

http://www.consumerpsychologist.com/

Download the fast food facts pdf

http://www.fastfoodmarketing.org/media/FastFoodFACTS_Report.pdf

All the “facts” McDonald’s “DOES NOT” want YOU to know

What’s the connection between McDonald’s and starvation in the ‘Third World’?

There is no point in feelin guilty about eating while watching starving African children on TV. If you do send money to Band Aid, or shop at Oxfam, etc., that’s morally good but politically useless. It shifts the blame from governments and doesnothing to challenge the power of multinational corporations.

HUNGRY FOR DOLLARS

McDonald’s is one of several giant corporations with investments in vast tracts of land in poor countries, sold to them by the dollar-hungry rulers (often military) and privileged elites, evicting the small farmers that live there growing food fortheir own people.

The power of the US dollar means that in order to buy technology and manufactured goods, poor countries are trapped into producing more and more food for export to the States. Out of 40 of the world’s poorest countries, 36 export food to the USA – thewealthiest.

ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM

Some ‘Third World’ countries, where most children are undernourished, are actually exporting their staple crops as animal feed – i.e. to fatten cattle for turning into burgers in the ‘First World’. Millions of acres of the best farmland in poor contries are being used for our benefit – for tea, coffee, tobacco, etc. – while people there are starving. McDonald’s is directly involved in this economic imperialism, which keeps most black people poor and hungry while many whites grow fat.

GROSS MISUSE OF RESOURCES GRAIN is fed to cattle in South American countries to produce the meat in McDonald’s hamburgers. Cattle consume 10 times the amount of grain and soy that humans do: one calorie of beef demands ten calories of grain. Of the 145 million tons of grain and so fed to livestock, only 21 million tons of meat and by-products are used. The waste is 124 million tons per year at a value of 20 billion US dollars. It has been calculated that this sum would feed, clothe and house the world’s entire population fo one year.

 

FIFTY ACRES EVERY MINUTE EVERY year an area of rainforest the size of Britain is cut down or defoliated, and burnt. Globally, one billion people depend on water flowing from these forests, which soak up rain and release it gradually. The disaster in Ethiopia and Sudan is at leastpartly due to uncontrolled deforestation. In Amazonia – where there are now about 100,000 beef ranches – torrential rains sweep down through the treeless valleys, eroding the land and washing away the soil. The bare earth, baked by the tropical sun, becoms useless for agriculture. It has been estimated that this destruction causes at least one species of animal, plant or insect to become extinct every few hours.

Why is it wrong for McDonald’s to destroy rainforests?

    AROUND the Equator there is a lush green belt of incredibly beautiful tropical forest, untouched by human development for one hundred million years, supporting about half of all Earth’s life-forms, including some 30,000 plant species, and producing a ajor part of the planet’s crucial supply of oxygen.

PET FOOD & LITTER

  • McDonald’s and Burger King are two of the many US corporations using lethal poisons to destroy vast areas of Central American rainforest to create grazing pastures for cattle to be sent back to the States as burgers and pet food, and to provide fat-food packaging materials. (Don’t be fooled by McDonald’s saying they use recycled paper: only a tiny per cent of it is. The truth is it takes 800 square miles of forest just to keep them supplied with paper for one year. Tons of this end up litteing the cities of ‘developed’ countries.)

COLONIAL INVASION

  • Not only are McDonald’s and many other corporations contributing to a major ecological catastrophe, they are forcing the tribal peoples in the rainforests off their ancestral territories where they have lived peacefully, without damaging their envronment, for thousands of years. This is a typical example of the arrogance and viciousness of multinational companies in their endless search for more and more profit.It’s no exaggeration to say that when you bite into a Big Mac, you’re helping the McDonald’s empire to wreck this planet.

What’s so unhealthy about McDonald’s food?

      McDONALD’s try to show in their “Nutrition Guide” (which is full of impressive-looking but really quite irrelevant facts & figures) that mass-produced hamburgers, chips, colas, milkshakes, etc., are a useful and nutritious part of any diet.

What they don’t make clear is that a diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt (sodium), and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals – which describes an average McDonald’s meal – is linked with cancers of the breast and bowel, and heart disease. Thisis accepted medical fact, not a cranky theory. Every year in Britain, heart disease alone causes about 180,000 deaths.

FAST = JUNK

  • Even if they like eating them, most people recognise that processed burgers and synthetic chips, served up in paper and plastic containers, is junk-food. McDonald’s prefer the name “fast-food”. This is not just because it is manufactured and serve up as quickly as possible – it has to be eaten quickly too. It’s sign of the junk-quality of Big Macs that people actually hold competitions to see who can eat one in the shortest time.

PAYING FOR THE HABIT

  • Chewing is essential for good health, as it promotes the flow of digestive juices which break down the food and send nutrients into the blood. McDonald’s food is so lacking in bulk it is hardly possible to chew it. Even their own figures show thata “quarter-pounder” is 48% water. This sort of fake food encourages over-eating, and the high sugar and sodium content can make people develop a kind of addiction – a ‘craving’. That means more profit for McDonald’s, but constipation, clogged arteries andheart attacks for many customers.
GETTING THE CHEMISTRY RIGHT McDONALD’s stripey staff uniforms, flashy lighting, bright plastic decor, “Happy Hats” and muzak, are all part of the gimmicky dressing-up of low-quality food which has been designed down to the last detail to look and feel and taste exactly the sae in any outlet anywhere in the world. To achieve this artificial conformity, McDonald’s require that their “fresh lettuce leaf”, for example, is treated with twelve different chemicals just to keep it the right colour at the right crispness for th right length of time. It might as well be a bit of plastic.

How do McDonald’s deliberately exploit children?

    NEARLY all McDonald’s advertising is aimed at children. Although the Ronald McDonald ‘personality’ is not as popular as their market researchers expected (probably because it is totally unoriginal), thousands of young children now think of burgers andchips every time they see a clown with orange hair.

THE NORMALITY TRAP

  • No parent needs to be told how difficult it is to distract a child from insisting on a certain type of food or treat. Advertisements portraying McDonald’s as a happy, circus-like place where burgers and chips are provided for everybody at any hourof the day (and late at night), traps children into thinking they aren’t ‘normal’ if they don’t go there too. Appetite, necessity and – above all – money, never enter the “innocent” world of Ronald McDonald.Few children are slow to spot the gaudy red and yellow standardised frontages in shopping centres and high streets throughout the country. McDonald’s know exactly what kind of pressure this puts on people looking after children. It’s hard not to give in t this ‘convenient’ way of keeping children ‘happy’, even if you haven’t got much money and you try to avoid junk-food.

TOY FOOD

  • As if to compensate for the inadequacy of their products, McDonald’s promote the consumption of meals as a ‘fun event’. This turns the act of eating into a performance, with the ‘glamour’ of being in a McDonald’s (‘Just like it is in the ads!’) reucing the food itself to the status of a prop. Not a lot of children are interested in nutrition, and even if they were, all the gimmicks and routines with paper hats and straws and balloons hide the fact that the food they’re seduced into eating is at best mediocre, at worst poisonous – and their parnts know it’s not even cheap.
RONALD’S DIRTY SECRET ONCE told the grim story about how hamburgers are made, children are far less ready to join in Ronald McDonald’s perverse antics. With the right prompting, a child’s imagination can easily turn a clown into a bogeyman (a lot of children are very suspiciou of clowns anyway). Children love a secret, and Ronald’s is especially disgusting.

In what way are McDonald’s responsible for torture and murder?

      THE menu at McDonald’s is based on meat. They sell millions of burgers every day in 35 countries throughout the world. This means the constant slaughter, day by day, of animals born and bred solely to be turned into McDonald’s products.

Some of them – especially chickens and pigs – spend their lives in the entirely artificial conditions of huge factory farms, with no access to air or sunshine and no freedom of movement. Their deaths are bloody and barbaric.

MURDERING A BIG MAC

  • In the slaughterhouse, animals often struggle to escape. Cattle become frantic as they watch the animal before them in the killing-line being prodded, beaten, electrocuted, and knifed.A recent British government report criticised inefficient stunning methods which frequently result in animals having their throats cut while still fully conscious. McDonald’s are responsible for the deaths of countless animals by this supposedly humane mehod. We have the choice to eat meat or not. The 450 million animals killed for food in Britain every year have no choice at all. It is often said that after visiting an abattoir, people become nauseous at the thought of eating flesh. How many of us would be prpared to work in a slaughterhouse and kill the animals we eat?

 

WHAT’S YOUR POISON? MEAT is responsible for 70% of all food-poisoning incidents, with chicken and minced meat (as used in burgers) being the worst offenders. When animals are slaughtered, meat can be contaminated with gut contents, faeces and urine, leading to bacterial infetion. In an attempt to counteract infection in their animals, farmers routinely inject them with doses of antibiotics. These, in addition to growth-promoting hormone drugs and pesticide residues in their feed, build up in the animals’ tissues and can furter damage the health of people on a meat-based diet.

What’s it like working for McDonald’s?

    THERE must be a serious problem: even though 80% of McDonald’s workers are part-time, the annual staff turnover is 60% (in the USA it’s 300 %). It’s not unusual for their restaurant-workers to quit after just four or five weeks. The reasons are not had to find.

NO UNIONS ALLOWED

  • Workers in catering do badly in terms of pay and conditions. They are at work in the evenings and at weekends, doing long shifts in hot, smelly, noisy environments. Wages are low and chances of promotion minimal.To improve this through Trade Union negotiation is very difficult: there is no union specifically for these workers, and the ones they could join show little interest in the problems of part-timers (mostly women). A recent survey of workers in burger-resturants found that 80% said they needed union help over pay and conditions. Another difficulty is that the ‘kitchen trade’ has a high proportion of workers from ethnic minority groups who, with little chance of getting work elsewhere, are wary of being saced – as many have been – for attempting union organisation.

    McDonald’s have a policy of preventing unionisation by getting rid of pro-union workers. So far this has succeeded everywhere in the world except Sweden, and in Dublin after a long struggle.

TRAINED TO SWEAT

  • It’s obvious that all large chain-stores and junk-food giants depend for their fat profits on the labour of young people. McDonald’s is no exception: three-quarters of its workers are under 21. The production-line system deskills the work itself: nybody can grill a hamburger, and cleaning toilets or smiling at customers needs no training. So there is no need to employ chefs or qualified staff – just anybody prepared to work for low wages.As there is no legally-enforced minimum wage in Britain, McDonald’s can pay what they like, helping to depress wage levels in the catering trade still further. They say they are providing jobs for school-leavers and take them on regardless of sex or race.The truth is McDonald’s are only interested in recruiting cheap labour – which always means that disadvantaged groups, women and black people especially, are even more exploited by industry than they are already.
EVERYTHING MUST GOWHAT’s wrong with McDonald’s is also wrong with all the junk-food chains like Wimpy, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Wendy, etc. All of them hide their ruthless exploitation of resources, animals and people behind a facade of colourful gimmicks and ‘family fun. The food itself is much the same everywhere – only the packaging is different. The rise of these firms means less choice, not more. They are one of the worst examples of industries motivated only by profit, and geared to continual expansion.

This materialist mentality is affecting all areas of our lives, with giant conglomerates dominating the marketplace, allowing little or no room for people to create genuine choices. But alternatives do exist, and many are gathering support every day from eople rejecting big business in favour of small-scale self-organisation and co-operation.

The point is not to change McDonald’s into some sort of vegetarian organisation, but to change the whole system itself. Anything less would still be a rip-off.

 

    STOP using McDonald’s, Wimpy, etc., and tell your friends exactly why. These companies’ huge profits – and therefore power to exploit – come from people just walking in off the street. It does make a difference what individuals do. Why wait for everyoe else to wake up?

YOUR INFLUENCE COUNTS

*

    Research has shown that a large proportion of people who use fast-food places do so because they are there – not because they particularly like the food or feel hungry. This fact alone suggests that hamburgers are part of a giant con that peole would avoid if they knew what to do. Unfortunately we tend to undervalue our personal responsibility and influence. This is wrong. All change in society starts from individuals taking the time to think about the way they live and acting on their belief. Movements are ‘just ordinary people’ linking together, one by one…

      YOU might not always hear about them, but there are many groups campaigning on the issues raised here – movements to support the struggles in the ‘Third World’, to fight for the rights of indigenous peoples, to protect rainforests, to oppose the killig of animals etc.

Wherever there is oppression there is resistance: people areorganising themselves, taking courage from the activities of ordinary, concerned people from all round the world, learning new ways and finding new energy to create a better life. The apathy of others is no reason to hang around waiting for someone to tell you what to ‘do’. You need no special talents to join in your local pressure group, or start one up – existing groups will give information and advice if necessary.

For leaflets on all aspects of vegetarianism and nutrition, animal rights and welfare, etc., contact ANIMAL AID, 7 Castle Street, Tonbridge, Kent. Plenty of other contacts can be made by writing to Greenpeace at the address below.

        KICKING the burger habit is easy. And it’s the best way to start giving up meat altogether. Vegetarianism is no longer just a middle-class fad: last year the number of vegetarians in Britain increased b

one-third.

      Most supermarkets now stock vgetarian produce, and vegans – who eat no animal products at all – are also being catered for. In short, the ‘cranky’ vegetarian label is being chucked out, along with all the other old myths about ‘rabbit food’.
  • Why not try some vegan or vegetarian recipes, just as an experiment to start with? When asked in a survey, most vegetarians who used to eat meat said they had far more varied meals after they dropped meat from their diet. Another survey showed that peopl on a meatless diet were healthier than meat-eaters, less prone to ‘catch’ coughs and colds, and with greatly reduced risk of suffering from hernia, piles, obesity and heart disease.
    • THERE are loads of cheap, tasty and nutritious alternatives to a diet based on the decomposing flesh of dead animals: fresh fruit of all kinds, a huge variety of local & exotic vegetables, cereals, pulses, beans, rice, nuts, wholegrain foods, soya driks etc. All over the country wholefood co-operatives are springing up. Now is a really good time for change.
  • A vegan Britain would be self-sufficient on only 25% of the agricultural land presently available. Why not get together with your friends and grow your own vegetables? There are over 700,000 allotments in Britain – and countless gardens.
  • The pleasure of preparing healthy food and sharing good meals has a political importance too: it is a vital part of the process of ordinary people taking control of their lives to create a better society, instead of leaving their futures in the cynical, reedy hands of corporations like McDonald’s.
  • WHO MADE THIS LEAFLET?
  • THE LONDON GREENPEACE GROUP has existed for many years as an independent group of activists with no involvement in any particular political party. The people – not ‘members’ – who come to the weekly open meetings share a concern for the oppression in our ives and the destruction of our environment. Many opposition movements are growing in strength – ecological, anti-war, animal liberation, and anarchist-libertarian movements – and continually learning from each other. We encourage people to think and act ndependently, without leaders, to try to understand the causes of oppression and to aim for its abolition through social revolution. This begins in our own lives, now.