The Benefits of Organic Food
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,813
On Slideshare
1,813
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. `ASPARTAME - MONSANTO DIET DRINK POISON(Aspartame: also known as Aspartamine, NutraSweet ® , Equal ® , Spoonful ® )Commonly found in diet drinks and other artificially sweetened "diet" foods.Introduction: There are a number of people who have E-mailed us stating that the following articleis an “urban legend” (untrue) and have provided links to “acclaimed medical expert” websites. Invisiting these links, the pages provided little or no information substantiating their claims that thefollowing article by Nancy Markel is untrue.It is our opinion that whether or not every small detail of the article is correct, the essence of thearticle is relevant. The essence is that aspartame contains methanol (and methanol cannot be madenon-poisonous) which breaks down in the body. The methanol and its metabolic byproducts arebound to have damaging effects on the human body if taken in consistently high doses. Those whoconsume a lot of diet sodas or cook with Nutri-Sweet are the most likely to have the symptoms. Andwhile the symptom list she provides is quite extensive, remember that the symptoms of methanolpoisoning are also extensive.WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE and the MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS FOUNDATION IS SUINGFDA FOR COLLUSION WITH MONSANTO!Article written by Nancy MarkleI have spent several days lecturing at the WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE onASPARTAME marketed as NutraSweet, Equal, and Spoonful ". In the keynote address by theEPA, they announced that there was an epidemic of multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus, and theydid not understand what toxin was causing this to be rampant across the United States. I explainedthat I was there to lecture on exactly that subject.When the temperature of Aspartame exceeds 86 degrees F, the wood alcohol in ASPARTAMEcoverts to formaldehyde and then to formic acid, which in turn causes metabolic acidosis. (Formicacid is the poison found in the sting of fire ants).The methanol toxicity mimics multiple sclerosis; thus people were being diagnosed with havingmultiple sclerosis in error. The multiple sclerosis is not a death sentence, where methanol toxicityis.In the case of systemic lupus, we are finding it has become almost as rampant as multiple sclerosis,especially Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi drinkers. Also, with methanol toxicity, the victims usuallydrink three to four 12 oz. cans of these per day, some even more.In the cases of systemic lupus, which is triggered by ASPARTAME, the victim usually does notknow that the aspartame is the culprit. The victim continues its use aggravating the lupus to such a
  • 2. degree that sometimes it becomes life threatening. When we get people off the aspartame, thosewith systemic lupus usually become asymptomatic. Unfortunately, we can not reverse this disease.On the other hand, in the case of those diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, (when in reality, thedisease is methanol toxicity), most of the symptoms disappear. We have seen cases where theirvision has returned and even their hearing has returned. This also applies to cases of tinnitus. During a lecture I said "If you are using ASPARTAME (NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc.) andyou suffer from fibromylagia symptoms, spasms, shooting pains, numbness in your legs,cramps, vertigo, dizziness, headaches, tinnitus, joint pain, depression, anxiety attacks, slurredspeech, blurred vision, or memory loss-- you probably have ASPARTAME DISEASE!"People were jumping up during the lecture saying, "Ive got this, is it reversible?" It is rampant. Someof the speakers at my lecture even were suffering from these symptoms. In one lecture attended bythe Ambassador of Uganda, he told us that their sugar industry is adding aspartame! He continued bysaying that one of the industry leaders son could no longer walk - due in part by product usage!We have a very serious problem. Even a stranger came up to Dr. Espisto (one of my speakers) andmyself and said, "Could you tell me why so many people seem to be coming down with MS?"During a visit to a hospice, a nurse said that six of her friends, who were heavy Diet Coke addicts,had all been diagnosed with MS. This is beyond coincidence. Here is the problem. There wereCongressional Hearings when aspartame was included in 100 different products. Since this initialhearing, there have been two subsequent hearings, but to no avail. Nothing as been done.The drug and chemical lobbies have very deep pockets. Now there are over 5,000 productscontaining this chemical, and the PATENT HAS EXPIRED!!!!! At the time of this first hearing,people were going blind. The methanol in the aspartame converts to formaldehyde in the retina ofthe eye.Formaldehyde is grouped in the same class of drugs as cyanide and arsenic-- DEADLYPOISONS!!!Unfortunately, it just takes longer to quietly kill, but it is killing people and causing all kinds ofneurological problems.Aspartame changes the brains chemistry. It is the reason for severe seizures. This drug changesthe dopamine level in the brain. Imagine what this drug does to patients suffering from ParkinsonsDisease. This drug also causes Birth Defects.There is absolutely no reason to take this product.It is NOT A DIET PRODUCT!!!The Congressional record said, "It makes you crave carbohydrates and will make you FAT". Dr.
  • 3. Roberts stated that when he got patients off aspartame, their average weight loss was 19 poundsper person. The formaldehyde stores in the fat cells, particularly in the hips and thighs.Aspartame is especially deadly for diabetics.All physicians know what wood alcohol will do to a diabetic. We find physicians that believe thatthey have patients with retinopathy, when in fact, the condition is caused by the aspartame. Theaspartame keeps the blood sugar level out of control, causing many patients to go into a coma.Unfortunately, many have died. People were telling us at the Conference of the American Collegeof Physicians, that they had relatives that switched from saccharin to an aspartame product and howthat relative had eventually gone into a coma. Their physicians could not get the blood sugar levelsunder control. Thus, the patients suffered acute memory loss and eventually coma and death.Memory loss is due to the fact that aspartic acid and phenylalanine are neurotoxic without the otheramino acids found in protein. Thus it goes past the blood brain barrier and deteriorates the neurons ofthe brain. Dr. Russell Blaylock, neurosurgeon, said, "The ingredients stimulates the neurons of thebrain to death, causing brain damage of varying degrees.Dr. Blaylock has written a book entitled "EXCITOTOXINS: THE TASTE THAT KILLS" Dr.H.J. Roberts, diabetic specialist and world expert on aspartame poisoning, has also written a bookentitled "DEFENSE AGAINST ALZHEIMERS DISEASE".Dr. Roberts tells how aspartame poisoning is escalating Alzheimers Disease, and indeed it is. Asthe hospice nurse told me, women are being admitted at 30 years of age with Alzheimers Disease.Dr. Blaylock and Dr. Roberts will be writing a position paper with some case histories and will postit on the Internet. According to the Conference of the American College of Physicians, "We aretalking about a plague of neurological diseases caused by this deadly poison".Dr. Roberts realized what was happening when aspartame was first marketed. He said, "his diabeticpatients presented with memory loss, confusion, and severe vision loss". At the Conference of theAmerican College of Physicians, doctors admitted that they did not know this.They had wondered why seizures were rampant (the phenylalanine in aspartame breaks down theseizure threshold and depletes seretonin, which causes manic depression, panic attacks, rage andviolence).Just before the Conference, I received a FAX from Norway, asking for a possible antidote for thispoison because they are experiencing so many problems in their country. This poison is nowavailable in 90 PLUS countries worldwide. Fortunately, we had speakers and ambassadors at theConference from different nations who have pledged their help. We ask that you help too.Print this article out and warn everyone you know. Take anything that contains aspartame back tothe store. Take the "NO ASPARTAME TEST" and send us your case history.I assure you that MONSANTO, the creator of aspartame, knows how deadly it is.
  • 4. MONSANTO funds the American Diabetes Association, American Dietetic Association, Congress,and the Conference of the American College of Physicians. The New York Times, on November 15,1996, ran an article on how the American Dietetic Association takes money from the food industry toendorse their products. Therefore, they can not criticize any additives or tell about their link toMONSANTO.How bad is this? We told a mother who had a child on NutraSweet to get the child off the product.The child was having grand mal seizures every day. The mother called her physician, who calledthe ADA, who told the doctor not to take the child off the NutraSweet.We are still trying to convince the mother that the aspartame is causing the seizures. Every time weget someone off of aspartame, the seizures stop.If the baby dies, you know whose fault it is, and what we are up against. There are 92 documentedsymptoms of aspartame, from coma to death. The majority of them are all neurological, because theaspartame destroys the nervous system.Aspartame Disease is partially the cause to what is behind some of the mystery of the Desert Stormhealth problems. The burning tongue and other problems discussed in over 60 cases can be directlyrelated to the consumption of an aspartame product. Several thousand pallets of diet drinks wereshipped to the Desert Storm troops. (Remember heat can liberate the methanol from the aspartame at86 degrees F). Diet drinks sat in the 120-degree F Arabian sun for weeks at a time on pallets. Theservice men and women drank them all day long. All of their symptoms are identical to aspartamepoisoning.Dr. Roberts says "consuming aspartame at the time of conception can cause birth defects". Thephenylalanine concentrates in the placenta, causing mental retardation, according to Dr. Louis Elsas,Pediatrician Professor - Genetics, at Emory University in his testimony before Congress.In the original lab tests, animals developed brain tumors (phenylalanine breaks down into DXP, abrain tumor agent). When Dr. Espisto was lecturing on aspartame, one physician in the audience, aneurosurgeon, said, "when they remove brain tumors, they have found high levels of aspartame inthem".Stevia, a sweet food, NOT AN ADDITIVE, which helps in the metabolism of sugar (which wouldbe ideal for diabetics), has now been approved as a dietary supplement by the FDA. For years, theFDA has outlawed this sweet food because of their loyalty to MONSANTO.Organic Steviahttp://stevitastevia.comIf it says "SUGAR FREE" on the label-- DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!
  • 5. Senator Howard Metzenbaum wrote a bill that would have warned all infants, pregnant mothers andchildren of the dangers of aspartame. The bill would have also instituted independent studies on theproblems existing in the population (seizures, changes in brain chemistry, changes in neurologicaland behavioral symptoms).It was killed by the powerful drug and chemical lobbies, letting loose the hounds of disease anddeath on an unsuspecting public.Since the Conference of the American College of Physicians, we hope to have the help of someworld leaders. Again, please help us too. There are a lot of people out there who must be warned,please let them know this information.~Comments Continued from the beginning:My wife who is board certified in Internal Medicine as well as Ambulatory Care (EmergencyMedicine) and who is also a diabetics and geriatrics expert, occasionally sees patients who exhibitthe symptoms mentioned in the article. Often, stopping consumption of aspartame (mostfrequently NutriSweet laden diet drinks) reduces or eliminates the symptoms. Some unfortunatelycannot be reversed, once the process begins.The Success seminars have a variety of prominent speakers on a wide range of subject; one seminarincluded President and First Lady Bush (Sr.). A prominent physician speaking at the one I attendedin ’95, made the comment that Aspartame is “#1 cause of complaints to the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration (FDA).”Weve received lots of interesting E-mail accounts from others whove read that article. Here are afew samples [I removed the authors names]”==================================Subject: Article by Nancy Markle re: AspartameMy name is D.C. from Silver Lake N.Y. I read the e-mail article regarding Aspartame by NancyMarkle approximately 2 weeks ago. It was forwarded to me by my sister who knew that I wasexperiencing problems with my eyes. I regularly used 3-6 packets of Equal sweetener in my coffeeon a daily basis for years! That with other "diet" products.On September 8th, 1998, I experienced a sudden loss of vision in my right eye where only "colorfulblurs" could be seen. After extensive testing including MRI, head x-rays, and vision testing of allsorts, the doctors told me they could not figure out what was wrong and recommended that I justreplace the lens in my eye glasses to accommodate my new prescription.I did just that.
  • 6. After reading the article on Aspartame, I immediately discontinued its use. After 5 days, I startedfeeling better and Praise the Lord, my eyesight started to CLEAR UP! I put the old lens back intomy glasses on May 1, 1999 because the "new" lens clouded my vision and I could see better withoutmy glasses. Coincidence? I think not.Thank you for sharing this valued article. I have forwarded it to everyone I know and have givencopies to friends without e-mail.God Bless you all! D.C.======================================Subject: Help PleaseIn last 2 years I have been diagnosed with "Lupus like" diseases as follows: Polymyalgia-Fibromyalgia- Diabetes- Rheumatoid Arthritis with visual problems. I now have to wear glassesdue to not being able focus; also no treatments are effective thus far.I drank about 6-10 diet drinks a day and have for about 20 years, my drink of choice was Diet Coke!!!!!!The doctor checks me for Lupus frequently, because when I first got sick, first symptom wasbutterfly rash on face, but all tests are negative this far. My sediment rate run very high. Is there atest for toxicity from NutraSweet? Please contact me either way. My doctor says diseases areprogressing rapidly.==================================Some thoughts about the medical establishment:I grew up in medical doctor’s family, with 3 of 4 siblings following my father into a medicallyrelated field. The medical community surrounded me. My wife is a practicing doctor. And ingeneral we have high respect for the medical field. However, as she was going through her medicaltraining at one of the top medical schools in the USA, she was told that half of what she would betaught over the next 4 years would later be found to be inaccurate, they just didn’t know which half.In other words, there is a necessity for a sharp doctor to be flexible to accept new discoveries thatreplace old ones (that’s why they call it the “practice” of medicine”). Several “truths” that have beendebunked since she went through medical school were that the brain and heart are static; they don’tchange or heal. Now of course we know that the heart can repair if given the right environment.Further that the brain is not static, but ever changing (neuroplasticity). Even though ADD, dyslexicchildren are often treated with psychotropics such as Ritalin or Adderall, the National Institutes ofHealth (NIH), after a detailed study concluded that they don’t help academic performance longterm at all!Neural-Cognitive Therapy is much more effective as far as academics are concerned. My wife wastaught by some of her wise associates that if something didnt make sense, to "follow the money or
  • 7. the power" to find out why a medical concept, product or medication was being backed by certainauthorities.So while truth may be absolute, knowledge of the truth may be ever changing.~DIRTY SECRETS of the Food Processing Industryhttp://scribd.com/doc/48259922~``Racketeering charges have been filed against Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld,Monsanto, NutraSweet Co., the American Diabetes Association and Dr Robert Moser fordistributing toxic aspartame, in a class action representing many plaintiffs, filed in the US District Court for theNorthern District of California seeking $350 million in damages.The suit charges the defendants with manufacturing and marketing a deadly neurotoxin unfit forhuman consumption, while they assured the pubic that aspartame (also known as NutraSweet/Equal)
  • 8. contaminated products are safe and healthful, even for children and pregnant women. Present USSecretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, is mentioned throughout the lawsuit.As evidence, an explosive affidavit from a former translator for the GD Searle company - thedeveloper of aspartame - was made recently public and revealed the following.For 16 years, the Food and Drug Administration denied approval of aspartame because ofcompelling evidence of its contributing to brain tumours and other serious disabilities.Donald Rumsfeld left President Fords administration as Chief of Staff to become the CEO ofaspartame-producer GD Searle Co. in 1981. Shortly after, Rumsfeld became the CEO, and the dayafter President Reagan took office, aspartame was quickly approved by FDA Commissioner ArthurHayes over the objections of the FDAs Public Board of Inquiry. Hayes had been recently appointedby the Reagan Administration. Shortly after aspartames approval by the FDA, Hayes joinedNutraSweets public relations firm under a 10-year contract at $1,000 a day.In January 1977, the FDA wrote a 33-page letter to US Justice Department Attorney Sam Skinner:"We request that your office convene a Grand Jury investigation into apparent violations of theFederal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act." Skinner allowed the Statute of Limitations to run. ThreeFDA Commissioners and eight other officers and Skinner took jobs in the aspartame industry shortlyafter it was approved.The FDA once listed 92 adverse reactions from 10,000 consumer complaints and would send thelist to all inquirers. In 1996 the FDA stopped taking complaints and now denies the existence of thereport. Seizures, blindness, sexual dysfunction, obesity, testicular, mammary and brain tumoursand death, plus dozens of other dread diseases named in the suit, arise from the consumption ofthis neurotoxin.Defendant Moser, past CEO of NutraSweet, is cited for misrepresenting facts to public andcommercial users with full knowledge of the deceptions. Aspartame/Nutrasweet is sold to Bayer,Con Agra Foods, Dannon, Smucker, Kellogg, Wrigley, PepsiCo, Kraft Foods (Crystal Light),Conopco (Slim-Fast), Coke, Pfizer, Wal-Mart and Wyeth (to name a few), who use it in some oftheir products, including childrens vitamins. These entities are named in other suits now inCalifornian courts.Defendant American Diabetes Association is meant to care for diabetics. A 35-year ADA member,diabetic specialist HJ Roberts, MD, FACP, discovered aspartame can precipitate or aggravatediabetes and its complications, or simulate the complications (especially neuropathy andretinopathy).His report, intended for the Annual Scientific Meeting of the ADA, was rejected for presentation -and even publication of the abstract - but was later published in another medical journal.`The Bush Administration could be called the Monsanto Cabinet, per Robert Cohen,author of “Milk, The Deadly Poison” which details the horrid politics behind the contamination of
  • 9. our nations milk and beef supply with bovine growth hormone.Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was president of Searle Pharmaceuticals, a company ownedby Monsanto. Rumsfeld was also the Secretary of Defense under President Ford.Rumsfeld is believed to have earned around US$12 million from the sale of Searle to Monsanto.Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly received $10,000 for his senatorial campaign fromMonsanto in the mid 90s. Ashcrofts contribution from Monsanto was five times that of any othercongressional hopeful. Ashcroft, and Sr. Bush Supreme Court appointee Clarence Thomas wereinstrumental in gaining Food and Drug Administation (FDA) approval for Monsantoscontroversial artificial sweetener aspartame, which has been linked to over 200 ailments thatinclude Alzheimers disease, juvenile diabetes, depression, epileptic seizures, blindness, memoryloss, excitability, weight gain, multiple sclerosis and lupus (The Idaho Observer, November,2000).Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman was on the board of directors of Calgene Pharmaceutical,another company currently owned by Monsanto.Secretary of Health Tommy Thompson is the fourth member of the Bush cabinet to have direct tiesto Monsanto. The former governor of Wisconsin designated his state as a “biotech zone” for the useof Monsantos bovine growth hormone even though dairy farmers in his state opposed thedesignation by a 9-1 ratio. Thompson reportedly received $50,000 from biotech companies duringhis election campaign.Bovine growth hormone, which does increase the productivity of dairy cows, has also been linkedto many health problems in children and adults (The Idaho Observer, November, 2000) andmakes cows sick.Bovine growth hormone has been outlawed in most countries, but not the U.S.And as Cohen points out, another player in the Monsanto-studded Cabinet is Rep. Richard Pombo,who will head the Agriculture Subcommittee on Dairy, Livestock and Poultry. Pombo is also aMonsanto boy, having taken campaign money from it while stalling a 1994 bill to make labelingmandatory for milk or milk products containing Bovine Growth Hormones. Pombo helped kill thebill in committee.Monsanto also holds the patent on the “terminator gene” which prevents plants from producingviable seed so that farmers, and therefore, people will be dependent upon the multinationalcorporation for their food supply.Monsanto has proven to be one of the most greedy, ruthless and environmentally irreverentcorporations in world history.One cannot serve the interests of Monsanto and serve the interests of people at the same time.
  • 10. `BiblePlushttp://bibleplus.org/health/ms_lupus.htmDVD: Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World; director: Cori Bracketthttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/74846448DVD: Sweet Remedy: The World Reacts to an Adulterated Food Supply; directors: JT Waldronhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/191050404``Organic Diabetic Sweetener - Steviahttp://www.stevitastevia.com
  • 11. book: The World According to Monsanto; by Marie-Monique Robinhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/286490848http://www.librarything.com/work/5155236http://books.google.com/books?id=7RqYQwAACAAJDVD: The World According to Monsantohttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/317415694book: The Last Farmer: How One Man Took on Monsanto to Save the Future of Food; by JohnParkhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/435418555http://www.librarything.com/work/9879147http://books.google.com/books?id=L1aHQAAACAAJbook: Fast Food Nation; by Eric Schlosserhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45248356http://www.librarything.com/work/3735http://books.google.com/books?id=Z_IO20TJBN8Cdvd: Fast Food Nation; director: Richard Linklaterhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/77539187dvd: Foodmatters; director: James Colquhounhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/428736140book: Empty Harvest; by Bernard Jensenhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/170954616http://www.librarything.com/work/1237077http://books.google.com/books?id=Fp7eN8Ghg60Cbook: Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy Of Industrial Agriculture; Andrew Kimbrellhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/48013826http://www.librarything.com/work/241618http://books.google.com/books?id=plTcVDph_SQCbook: Fateful Harvest: The True Story of a Small Town, a Global Industry, and a Toxic Secret;by Duff Wilsonhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/46565121http://www.librarything.com/work/569636http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateful_Harvesthttp://www.safefoodandfertilizer.org/index.htmlbook: Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills; by Russell L Blaylockhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44960035
  • 12. http://www.librarything.com/work/854055http://books.google.com/books?id=gav_LL7olqQCbook: The Truth About Caffeine; by Marina Kushnerhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/61209940http://www.librarything.com/work/1269843http://books.google.com/books?id=_xkjQaPrDxkCbook: The Truth About Coffee; by Marina Kushnerhttp://www.librarything.com/work/8358177http://books.google.com/books?id=0lh1PgAACAAJbook: Silent Spring; by Rachel Carsonhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/561302http://www.librarything.com/work/23937http://books.google.com/books?id=HeR1l0V0r54Cdvd: Food Inc; director: Robert Kennerhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/429531017http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/297529846http://www.librarything.com/work/8401882http://www.foodincmovie.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food,_Inc.http://www.scribd.com/doc/43528259dvd: King Corn; director: Aaron Woolfhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/213373700http://www.kingcorn.nethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Corn_%28film%29http://www.sustainabletable.org/features/articles/kingcorn/book: Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry Lies About the Safety of the GeneticallyEngineered Foods Youre Eatinghttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/53122034http://www.librarything.com/work/453446http://books.google.com/books?id=ltpSPgAACAAJhttp://www.seedsofdeception.comhttp://www.responsibletechnology.orgbook: Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods; byJeffrey Smithhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/77541620http://www.librarything.com/work/3361962http://gmwatch.orghttp://www.scribd.com/doc/41584887http://books.google.com/books?id=EctxAAAACAAJ
  • 13. dvd: Food Fight; director: Chris Taylorhttp://www.foodfightthedoc.comdvd: Ingredients; producer: Brian Kimmelhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/608387521http://www.ingredientsfilm.comhttp://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=101225708412&notes_tab=app_2347471856book: Animal Factory: The Looming Threat of Industrial Pig, Dairy, and Poultry Farms toHumans; by David Kirbyhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/428027213http://www.librarything.com/work/9398107http://books.google.com/books?id=VQ9sXDyYN64Cdvd: The Future of Food; by Deborah Koons Garciahttp://www.thefutureoffood.comhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/63134852book: Disconnect: The Truth about Cell Phone Radiation; by Devra Davishttp://www.environmentalhealthtrust.orghttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/526057538http://www.librarything.com/work/10261957http://books.google.com/books?id=x671QwAACAAJdvd: Super Size Me; director: Morgan Spurlockhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/56582138book: Dont Eat This Book: Fast Food and the Supersizing of America; by Morgan Spurlockhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57694996http://www.librarything.com/work/18410http://books.google.com/books?id=LLLuAAAAMAAJdvd: Killer at Large, Why obesity is Americas greatest threat; director: Steven Greenstreethttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/317962830http://www.facebook.com/pages/Killer-at-Large-Why-Obesity-Is-Americas-Greatest-Threat/109343939089227book: We Dont Die We Kill Ourselves: Our Foods Are Killing Us!; by Roger L De Haanhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/83766162http://www.librarything.com/work/2633326http://books.google.com/books?id=jGlPAAAACAAJbook: Politically Incorrect Nutrition; by Michael Barbeehttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/55803425
  • 14. http://www.librarything.com/work/607609http://books.google.com/books?id=KTGzxKdJ7hYCbook: The ADHD Fraud: Children are dying from ADHD Drugs; by Fred A. Baughmanhttp://www.adhdfraud.orghttp://www.ritalindeath.comhttp://www.feingold.orghttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/71817204http://www.librarything.com/work/1486426http://books.google.com/books?id=3R4XCP1Dwi8Cbook: Living Downstream: A Scientists Personal Investigation of Cancer and theEnvironment; by Sandra Steingraberhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/435418465http://www.librarything.com/work/587300http://books.google.com/books?id=SNLEbFK2_B0Cbook: The Fluoride Deception; by Christopher Brysonhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/53870969http://www.librarything.com/work/1926469http://books.google.com/books?id=q3v_JgjZ6fsChttp://www2.fluoridealert.orghttp://www.lovethetruth.com/truth_about_fluoride.htmhttp://www.gatesofhorn.com/blog/the_fluoride_cover_uphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_poisoningbook: The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water; byPaul Connetthttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/642278620http://www.librarything.com/work/10119111http://books.google.com/books?id=DEqDaoNTo2ICbook: The Devils Poison: How fluoride is Killing You; by Dean Murphyhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/278376305http://www.librarything.com/work/8408241http://books.google.com/books?id=YXKjNwAACAAJbook: Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death; by Barry Groveshttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/47726037http://www.librarything.com/work/278546http://books.google.com/books?id=CvpFAAAAYAAJbook: Fluoride: The Freedom Fight; by H.C. Moolenburghhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/23350208http://www.librarything.com/work/10041318http://books.google.com/books?id=rblpAAAAMAAJ
  • 15. book: The Fluoride Question: Panacea or Poison; by Anne-Lise Gotzschehttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1111450http://books.google.com/books?id=RP1pAAAAMAAJ~MONSANTO MEN in the USA Government`The Bush administrations could be called the Monsanto Cabinet, per Robert Cohen, author of“Milk, The Deadly Poison” which details the horrid politics behind the contamination of ournations milk and beef supply with bovine growth hormone.Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was president of Searle Pharmaceuticals, a company ownedby Monsanto. Rumsfeld was also the Secretary of Defense under President Ford.Rumsfeld is believed to have earned around US$12 million from the sale of Searle to Monsanto.Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly received $10,000 for his senatorial campaign fromMonsanto in the mid 90s. Ashcrofts contribution from Monsanto was five times that of any othercongressional hopeful. Ashcroft, and Sr. Bush Supreme Court appointee Clarence Thomas wereinstrumental in gaining Food and Drug Administation (FDA) approval for Monsantoscontroversial artificial sweetener aspartame, which has been linked to over 200 ailments thatinclude Alzheimers disease, juvenile diabetes, depression, epileptic seizures, blindness, memoryloss, excitability, weight gain, multiple sclerosis and lupus (The Idaho Observer, November,2000).Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman was on the board of directors of Calgene Pharmaceutical,another company currently owned by Monsanto.Secretary of Health Tommy Thompson is the fourth member of the Bush cabinet to have direct tiesto Monsanto. The former governor of Wisconsin designated his state as a “biotech zone” for the useof Monsantos bovine growth hormone even though dairy farmers in his state opposed thedesignation by a 9-1 ratio. Thompson reportedly received $50,000 from biotech companies duringhis election campaign.Bovine growth hormone, which does increase the productivity of dairy cows, has also been linkedto many health problems in children and adults (The Idaho Observer, November, 2000) andmakes cows sick.Bovine growth hormone has been outlawed in most countries, but not the U.S.And as Cohen points out, another player in the Monsanto-studded Cabinet is Rep. Richard Pombo,who will head the Agriculture Subcommittee on Dairy, Livestock and Poultry. Pombo is also aMonsanto boy, having taken campaign money from it while stalling a 1994 bill to make labelingmandatory for milk or milk products containing Bovine Growth Hormones. Pombo helped kill the
  • 16. bill in committee.Monsanto also holds the patent on the “terminator gene” which prevents plants from producingviable seed so that farmers, and therefore, people will be dependent upon the multinationalcorporation for their food supply.Monsanto has proven to be one of the most greedy, ruthless and environmentally irreverentcorporations in world history.One cannot serve the interests of Monsanto and serve the interests of people at the same time.~Racketeering charges have been filed against Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, Monsanto,NutraSweet Co., the American Diabetes Association and Dr Robert Moser for distributing toxicaspartame, in a class action representing many plaintiffs, filed in the US District Court for theNorthern District of California seeking $350 million in damages.The suit charges the defendants with manufacturing and marketing a deadly neurotoxin unfit forhuman consumption, while they assured the pubic that aspartame (also known as NutraSweet/Equal)contaminated products are safe and healthful, even for children and pregnant women. Present USSecretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, is mentioned throughout the lawsuit.As evidence, an explosive affidavit from a former translator for the GD Searle company - thedeveloper of aspartame - was made recently public and revealed the following.For 16 years, the Food and Drug Administration denied approval of aspartame because ofcompelling evidence of its contributing to brain tumours and other serious disabilities.Donald Rumsfeld left President Fords administration as Chief of Staff to become the CEO ofaspartame-producer GD Searle Co. in 1981. Shortly after, Rumsfeld became the CEO, and the dayafter President Reagan took office, aspartame was quickly approved by FDA Commissioner ArthurHayes over the objections of the FDAs Public Board of Inquiry. Hayes had been recently appointedby the Reagan Administration. Shortly after aspartames approval by the FDA, Hayes joinedNutraSweets public relations firm under a 10-year contract at $1,000 a day.In January 1977, the FDA wrote a 33-page letter to US Justice Department Attorney Sam Skinner:"We request that your office convene a Grand Jury investigation into apparent violations of theFederal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act." Skinner allowed the Statute of Limitations to run. ThreeFDA Commissioners and eight other officers and Skinner took jobs in the aspartame industry shortlyafter it was approved.The FDA once listed 92 adverse reactions from 10,000 consumer complaints and would send thelist to all inquirers. In 1996 the FDA stopped taking complaints and now denies the existence of thereport. Seizures, blindness, sexual dysfunction, obesity, testicular, mammary and brain tumoursand death, plus dozens of other dread diseases named in the suit, arise from the consumption of
  • 17. this neurotoxin.Defendant Moser, past CEO of NutraSweet, is cited for misrepresenting facts to public andcommercial users with full knowledge of the deceptions. Aspartame/Nutrasweet is sold to Bayer,Con Agra Foods, Dannon, Smucker, Kellogg, Wrigley, PepsiCo, Kraft Foods (Crystal Light),Conopco (Slim-Fast), Coke, Pfizer, Wal-Mart and Wyeth (to name a few), who use it in some oftheir products, including childrens vitamins. These entities are named in other suits now inCalifornian courts.Defendant American Diabetes Association is meant to care for diabetics. A 35-year ADA member,diabetic specialist HJ Roberts, MD, FACP, discovered aspartame can precipitate or aggravatediabetes and its complications, or simulate the complications (especially neuropathy andretinopathy).His report, intended for the Annual Scientific Meeting of the ADA, was rejected for presentation -and even publication of the abstract - but was later published in another medical journal.~MONSANTO Genetically Engineered Food: How DANGEROUS to children?`Listing of the flaws and of the suppressed information regarding Genetically Engineered Food(GM). Listing of the Alternative Farming Methods that will eliminate Global Hunger.~Report from: Korea-Japan Joint Resolution Against GM WheatTo: Wheat Farmers and Traders of the USA and Canada:We, consolidated consumers of wheat products and organic farmers of Korea and Japan, are stronglyagainst GM wheat that contains not only Roundup-Ready herbicide-resistant protein but alsoantibiotics and the virus protein CaMV, all of them having potential of harming human healthand causing irreversible damage to the whole of nature, of which we are part.We will never eat even one piece of such grain, nor will we allow one bit to reach our lands. Pleasestop using GM wheat and keep using conventional non-GM wheat, the variety that we have acceptedand enjoyed. If any news that GM wheat is commercially grown reaches us, we win launch amassive rally to replace wheat with staple rice for any purpose of grain use.We sincerely wish you would take our voice into consideration when you make the choice ofwhether to go with GM wheat or conventional non-GM wheat.--The Coalition of Farmers and Consumers against GM Food in JapanA two-year-old Japanese study has now made it into an English translation. This document from theHealth Ministry of Japan ought to rattle a few cages and cause Cheney-Stokes palpitations in the
  • 18. breasts of scientists, both the perpetrators of fraud and the dupes who bought into the fiction beingpurveyed as science.In the Japanese report MONSANTOs dangerous logic may take this one-two punch withoutdistress, but literate farmers will recoil if they pause to follow the trail Japanese scientists havemarked with iron-clad clarity.Briefly, the desire to harvest more bins and bushels has prompted scientists to install a toxin into thebean itself via the agency of genetic engineering. With systemic resistance in tow, low-inputcultivation and cropping could be simplified. To achieve this goal, MONSANTO created a soybeanmutant resistant to their bestseller, the organophosphate Roundup. Glyphosate is the effectiveingredient in Roundup.The resistant strains developed seriously hampered enzymatic activity of ESPS (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase) The technical nature of the development does not needto detain us. Suffice it to say that one of the enzymes works to synthesize the aromatic amino acidstyrosine, phenylalanine and tryptophan, for which reason the soybean failed to thrive.GENETIC ENGINEERINGGenetic engineering was the rage at the time of the initial experiments. The idea was to breed unlikespecies at the molecular level, this technology having developed in the wake of Watson and Cricksmodeling of DNA in 1953.The company scientists found a microorganism in glyphosate factory sewage. It was a soil bacteriumcapable of synthesizing aromatic amino acids in the presence of glyphosate. The resultant productwas quite different from natures blueprint. It took a powerful protein from a cauliflower virus tomake the gene insert perform. Additionally, a signal peptide carries the necessary protein to the locusof the enzyme. These few notes are necessarily an aside, perhaps a bow to the ingenious craft of theengineer. But the mix of genes from several unrelated plants assumes understanding of a naturalsystem so complex that no computer in the world could handle even a fraction of the informationcontained within a blade of grass.The genetically modified soybean has never existed in nature. It appropriated the genetic material ofthe bean and tampered with it in defiance of natural evolution. The Japanese study tells us that "239(17.51 percent) nucleotides out of 1,365 total were manually converted into different bases . . . inorder for the protein synthetic machinery of the soybean cell to decipher the bacterial gene across thespecies barrier."All this is interesting, a bit esoteric, and possibly a broadside designed to confuse the grower andhand off convincing evidence that Norman Borlaug is right, the world has to have geneticengineering and greater profits for the brilliant redesigners of nature.The Japanese paper said, "It is with good reason that genetically modified plants are calledFrankenstein plants in Europe."
  • 19. ARE THEY SAFE?According to the FDA, modified beans are as safe as those designed by natural evolution. Are they?For field tests, soybeans were grown without herbicides. The Roundup Ready soybean is usuallysprayed with Roundup. "It was a surprise to find that both the genetically modified soybean 40-3-2strain and the parent strain, A5403, used for field tests were not sprayed with Roundup herbicide intheir cultivation. What MONSANTO has produced with Roundup application was a minimalamount, enough to test glyphosate residues in the harvested forage. Several tons of soybeans used insafety assessments were not produced with Roundup. The reason is not stated in the documents."Based on such data, the Japanese study asserts, it is not possible to assess the safety of soybeans thathuman beings and animals consume on the premise that glyphosate is missing, this when the toxin isused to inhibit plant enzyme ESPS and its effects on other metabolic pathways.One conclusion flows logically from the facts.Test results based on a product other than the one that is marketed are worthless.The protein analyzed was from E. coli, not from RR soybeans. The protein expressed in thebioengineered product does not have the same amino acid sequence as the soil bacterium from whichthe gene was harvested. There is the matter of "post-transnational modification after expression," theJapanese study said. In short, the whole procedure can run amok.Apparently it has, as on-scene sow breeding experiences in Iowa have revealed. The Japanese studynoted that "amino acid sequence" was not determined."What MONSANTO has sequenced was only 15 amino acids from N-terminal of the protein thatwas expressed in E. coli. The rest of the sequence was an assumption from the nucleotide sequenceof the bacterial DNA. They determined only 33 percent of an expected total of 455 amino acids thatthe protein is not of soybean."Further: "The real sequence of CP4ESPS protein in the soybean we are eating is still unknown."Further: "Acute toxicity tests on rats are also carried out by the protein expressed in E. coli." WhatMONSANTO says in the application document is that extracting large amounts of CP4ESPS proteinfrom soybeans is difficult.The Japanese find this a poor excuse. The paper goes on to define the proper procedure. The papersfiled with the U.S. government stand accused of conjectural science, science converted to the needsof a corporation that apparently sees science as malleable."The experiments described are fundamentally invalid," the report concludes. Yet the business ofgenetic engineering was loaded into American agriculture with hardly a single reference to the
  • 20. American constituency that the government was obligated to consult.ANIMAL TESTSThere were animal tests using cows, chickens, rats, catfish and quail. All seem to have beeninadequate. Toasted soybeans were fed to only 10 rats in each group for 28 days. Cross-generation orchronic toxicity was not measured by such a limited scope.Even so, weight and welfare of kidneys, liver, etc., exhibited differences. Short-term tests ofuntoasted soybeans did not exhibit a difference between GMOs and natural, and this became a pegon which hangs the claim of "no difference." The statistical differences were evident just the same,the Japanese say, but were ignored:Even with these far-from-satisfactory experiments, the data for body and organ weight of liver,kidney and testicles show obvious differences in the male rats between both groups, wild strainA5403 and bio-engineered strain 40-3-2 soybean.The groups fed raw soybeans showed no difference, but the male group fed toasted soybean 40-3-2exhibited 6.7 percent lower body weight than the A5403-fed group and 13 percent less than thegroup fed commercial feed mix at the end of test period of 28 days. Although this difference isdescribed as statistically significant in the data sheet, the conclusion ignores these results and statesthat "no statistical significance is observed."The experiments are far from satisfactory in terms of both the samples and the statistical methodused. Our group transcribed all raw data and redid the statistical analysis using the Turkey multiplemethod. The result again showed the apparent growth obstacle for body and kidney weight in malerats fed with toasted 40-3-2 soybean. We wondered why there is no such difference in the female ratsgroup. The answer to this question seemed to be the amount of feed intake: where males took 25 to30 grams/day, female rats took only 18 to 20grams/day (approximately 70 percent of male intake). Itis highly possible that female rats would also show significant growth difference if the experimentwere conducted on a much larger scale and with a longer feeding period.TOASTING, ETC.Much of this report has been abstracted in depth to make it readable for the average farmer. Theconclusion needs no explanation, for it speaks with damning finality:We found a highly intentional misinterpretation in ignoring obvious differences between theA5403 and 40-3-2 hybrids in the documents. Raw soybeans showed no difference in the analysisbetween genes modified 30-4-2 and non-modified A5403 soybeans. Difference is observed in toastedsoybeans. Besides such main components as water, protein, fat, fiber and ash, trypsin-inhibitor, lectinand urease, which are called harmful physiologically, active substances as feed are detected in theanalysis. Urease is used as an indicator of protein denaturation by heat treatment.
  • 21. Obvious differences appeared after toasting at actual feed processing conditions (108 C for 30minutes). While the concentrations of total protein and potassium were not changed, theconcentrations of trypsin-inhibitor, urease and lectin are significantly higher in the toastedglyphosate-tolerant bean 30-4-2 compared to that of the A5403 normal bean.These physiologically active substances remained active even after heat treatment in the geneticallymodified soybean, whereas those of the herbicide-sensitive normal bean were easily denatured andinactivated. The high activity of these elements does not usually satisfy as feed.This result prompted MONSANTO to claim that "the modified soybeans were not toastedsufficiently in the experiment," and they returned and asked for retreatment of the sample by theTexas A&M laboratory that processed the beans. MONSANTO ordered the condition of retoast at220 C for 25minutes, which is considerably higher than normal processing of 100 C for 10 minutes.Retoasting, however, further widened the difference in activity between the two strains. The hybrid61-67-1, another genetically modified soybean inserted with bacterial CP4EPSPS, showed a highheat-resistant property.Scientists would usually conclude in such a case that there was substantial difference between thetwo types, but MONSANTO concluded that the second toasting was still not enough.In the end, they toasted twice further and finally got the result they wanted, i.e., all proteins weredenatured and inactivated. With this result, they concluded that genetically modified and non-modified soybeans have equivalent properties.No protein can withstand repeated heat treatment and stay active. This is a common knowledge ofprotein chemistry. The results at normal feed-processing conditions is required - no more, no less.MONSANTO based their conclusions on the presumption that "they cant be different" and theireconomic need that "they shouldnt be different." Their translation of the experiment is based on adesired-outcome attitude and not at all scientific. The English-language report did not show analysisdata of the third and fourth heat treatments, but the summary report in Japanesehas a graph, as ifthere were data, showing the final loss of activity, stating, "The data from insufficient heat treatmentsis not adopted" and "No substantial difference observed." If one reviews only the summary volumein Japanese and does not look into the English data, one would be ushered to the conclusion "safe."However, we found in the first and the second analyses data a fact indicative of regular heattreatment. Granulated soybean, when heated, loses weight as water and other volatile componentsevaporate, and as a result, relative concentration of non-volatile substance such as total protein andash increases. The data shows clearly that the modified 40-3-6 and 61-67-1 and the non-modifiedA5403 have gone through same level of heat treatment. The decrease of water content also certifiesthis fact.MONSANTO concluded that the residual herbicide in a crop increases, therefore the safety standardshould be slackened. Adopting the Roundup-tolerant soybean would increase the herbicideconcentration in the soybean plants and seeds, because the herbicide is directly sprayed on the plantby post-emergence application before harvest. MONSANTO studied in detail the results of changingfactors such as spraying times, the concentration of the active ingredient, glyphosate, the duration of
  • 22. harvest after spraying, and growing locations.The data show clearly that the concentration of glyphosate and AMPA (a degraded metabolite ofglyphosate) in forage and hay increase greatly by post-emergence application of the herbicidecompared to that of conventional pre-emergence application, although the residual concentration inthe plant differed from place to place.The largest value of the combined glyphosate and AMPA was 40.187 ppm in forage, considerablyhigher than the U.S. safety standard at the time of application to FDA and USDA (1994) of 15 ppmin forage and hay. The maximum combined concentration of glyphosate and AMPA in soybean seedwas 13.178 ppm, less than the 20 ppm U.S. standard at that time. The concentration of residualglyphosate increased in accordance with the application, from two to three times. As a result,cultivating Roundup ready soybeans may sometimes violate U.S. safety standardsWe found a surprising statement in the document to address this problem. In its conclusion,MONSANTO says that "The maximum combined glyphosate and AMPA residue level ofapproximately 40 ppm in soybean forage resulting from these new uses exceeds the currentlyestablished tolerance of 15 ppm. Therefore, an increase in the combined glyphosate and AMPAtolerance for residues in soybean forage will be requested." They know very well that adoption of anherbicide-tolerant crop took precedence over safety standards. In fact, the U.S. tolerance standard ofcombined glyphosate and AMPA in soybean forage was changed to 100 ppm after they approved thegenetically engineered soybean.As for the Japanese government, they revised the safety standard of combined glyphosate andAMPA in soybean seed from 6 ppm to 20 ppm in April 2000 at the request of the U.S. government.Japan could thus import soybeans from the United States without violation of the law.Thus, MONSANTO, in their rush to verify safety, patchworked the results of experiments andanalyses that are as full of holes as an incomplete puzzle. Their product was asserted safe throughmanipulation of experimental results.Even more troubling, rather than trying to meet legal safety standards, they requested - and weregranted - the revision of these standards to fit their needsWe have managed to find facts showing inadequate and incomplete safety assessment in theapplication document by MONSANTO, even though our work was limited and took place underdifficult conditions. The process of genetic recombination and the results of other animalexperiments remain uninspected by us.TEST OF REASONThe matter of genetically modified canola is being tested in Canadas high court. The U.S. courtshave handed down incredible decisions, most of which carry out a reversal as greatly denounced asthe Dred Scott ruling. For now it is up to the American farmer to shun GMOs. The Japanese seem tohave taken the position that they want to see what happens to a generation of Americans before they
  • 23. rush to judgment.The original paper cited, abstracted, and quoted above is titled "Fraudulent Conclusion: FactsFound by Inspection of the Safety Assessment of GM Roundup Tolerant Soybean, MONSANTOsDangerous Logic as Seen in the Application Documents Submitted to the Health Ministry of Japan."The credit line reads, Masaharu Kawata, Assistant Professor, School of Science, Nagoya University,Japan. A subtitle says, "What Is Herbicide-Resistant Soybean by MONSANTO?"CONCLUSION:MONSANTO Genetically Engineered Food is VERY DANGEROUS.Stop the Monsanto BUTCHERS from KILLING your CHILDREN and GRANDCHILDREN.~School Food is DangerousDear John,Is anybody doing anything to change the food in schools? It’s terrible. Last week I took my 8-year-old to a school picnic. It was a lovely day, but they served bologna and cheese sandwiches on whitebread, with mayonnaise. Plus cookies and ice cream. And, of course, enormous plastic jugs of Coke.In class, pupils earn credits for good behavior, which they can use to get candy and Cokes. Help!FriedaDear Frieda,My, oh my. That is a shame. Maybe you and your child could wear one of the T-shirts to school thatsays “If you love me, don’t feed me junk food.”I wish these parents and teachers and administrators could understand what they are doing to theprecious children in their care.Fortunately, there are some people trying to change things. The chairperson of the Senate AgricultureCommittee, Senator Tom Harkin, has proposed that the government subsidize the cost of givingaway fruit and vegetables in school cafeterias as an alternative to candy and snacks that are sold invending machines.Los Angeles Unified School District, which has 748,000 students on its 677 campuses, prohibitscarbonated drink sales at elementary schools. And recently, the board of the nation’s second-largestschool district extended the ban, effective January, 2004, to also include the district’s approximately200 middle and high schools.
  • 24. The Board voted unanimously for this step, despite the vehement opposition of the National SoftDrink Association.Up until now, most Los Angeles Unified Schools have relied on soda sales to fund student activitiessuch as sports and field trips. Sodas sold in vending machines and student stores have generated anannual average profit of $39,000 per high school.Wouldn’t it make far more sense to fund our schools adequately in the first place, so they don’t haveto sell soft drinks and other junk food to cover their costs?Change is painfully slow, but it is starting. In 2001, Berkeley, California, schools went all organic.In 2002, the Oakland school district banned vending machines, candy, soda pop and other junk foodfrom its campuses. In the fall of 2002, Palo Alto (California) Unified School District went allorganic.I know it’s frustrating seeing the junk kids all-too-often eat in schools.But here’s a recent report about how things can indeed change, written by Jon Rappaport, titled:A Miracle In WisconsinIn Appleton, Wisconsin, a revolution has occurred.It’s taken place in the Central Alternative High School.The kids now behave. The hallways aren’t frantic. Even the teachers are happy.The school used to be out of control.Kids packed weapons.Discipline problems swamped the principal’s office.But not since 1997.What happened?Did they line every inch of space with cops? Did they spray valium gas in the classrooms? Did theyinstall metal detectors in the bathrooms? Did they build holding cells in the gym?Afraid not.In 1997, a private group called Natural Ovens began installing a healthy lunch program.Huh?
  • 25. Fast-food burgers, fries, and burritos gave way to fresh salad and whole grain bread.Fresh fruits were added to the menu.Good drinking water arrived. Vending machines were removed.As reported in a newsletter called Pure Facts, “Grades are up, truancy is no longer a problem,arguments are rare, and teachers are able to spend their time teaching.”Principal LuAnn Coenen, who files annual reports with the state of Wisconsin, has turned in somestaggering figures since 1997.Drop-outs? Students expelled? Students discovered to be using drugs? Carrying weapons?Committing suicide?Every category has come up ZERO. Every year.Mary Bruyette, a teacher, states, “I don’t have to deal with daily discipline issues…I don’t havedisruptions in class or the difficulties with student behavior I experienced before we started the foodprogram.”One student asserted, “Now that I can concentrate I think it’s easier to get along with people.What a concept---eating healthier food increases concentration.Principal Coenen sums it up:I can’t buy the argument that it’s too costly for schools to provide good nutrition for theirstudents.I found that one cost will reduce another.I don’t have the vandalism. I don’t have the litter. I don’t have the need for high security.At a nearby middle school, the new food program is catching on. A teacher there, Dennis Abram,reports, “I’ve taught here almost 30 years. I see the kids this year as calmer, easier to talk to. Theyjust seem more rational.I had thought about retiring this year and basically I’ve decided to teach another year---I’m havingtoo much fun!”~Monsantos Agent Orange - DEAD BABIES & DEAD VETERANS`THE ISSUE THAT WONT GO AWAY
  • 26. `The enduring presence of Agent Orange is just one terrible legacy of Vietnams ill-fated war.The USA used the toxic defoliant to unmask guerrilla fighters by stripping forest cover.But children are still being born with terrible deformities.Families are denied compensation from the USA.The USA denies responsibility.Stop the baby killersNote, some of the above companies (or their subsidiaries) produce drugs, toxic chemical, herbicides,insecticides and fertilizer.Most chemicals are made from fossil fuels.First, they poisons you with their Chemicals. Then, they will help you with their drugs for anexorbitant price.~AGENT ORANGE SIDE EFFECTSThe potentially deadly Agent Orange side effects recognized by the Veteran Affairs include:• Prostate Cancer• Respiratory Cancers• Multiple Myeloma• Type II Diabetes• Hodgkin’s Disease• Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma• Soft Tissue Sarcoma• Chloracne• Porphyria Cutanea Tarda• Peripheral Neuropathy• Spinal Bifidia in Vietnam veteran children exposed to Agent OrangeAGENT ORANGE BIRTH DEFECTSBirth defects were found to occur in Vietnam veterans that were exposed to Agent Orange.The birth defects included Spinal Bifidia and Peripheral Transient Neuropathy, and have continuedto affect third generations.
  • 27. "TCDD (dioxin) has been shown to be extremely toxic to a number ofanimal species. Mortality does not occur immediately.it appears thatthe animals environment suddenly becomes toxic to them."~CASARETT AND DOULLS TOXICOLOGY, 1996From 1962 to 1970, the US military sprayed 72 million liters ofherbicides, mostly Agent Orange, in Vietnam. Over one millionVietnamese were exposed to the spraying, as well as over 100,000Americans and allied troops. Dr. James Clary, a scientist at theChemical Weapons Branch, Eglin Air Force Base, who designed theherbicide spray tank and wrote a 1979 report on Operation Ranch Hand(the name of the spraying program), told Senator Daschle in 1988,"When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the1960s, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxincontamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the militaryformulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the civilianversion due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However,because the material was to be used on the enemy, none of us wereoverly concerned. We never considered a scenario in which our ownpersonnel would become contaminated with the herbicide."quoted by Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, 1990WHAT DID WE KNOW ABOUT DIOXIN, AND WHEN DID WE KNOW IT?The first reported industrial dioxin poisoning occurred in Nitro, WestVirginia in 1949. The exposed workers complained of rash, nausea,headaches, muscle aches, fatigue and emotional instability. A 1953accident elsewhere resulted in peripheral neuropathies.A 1969 report commissioned by the USDA found Agent Orange showed a"significant potential to increase birth defects." The same year, theNIH confirmed that it caused malformations and stillbirths in mice. In1970, the US Surgeon General warned it might be hazardous to "ourhealth." The same day, the Secretaries of the Departments ofAgriculture, the Interior, and HEW jointly announced the suspension ofits use around lakes, recreation areas, homes and crops intended forhuman consumption. DOD simultaneously announced its suspension of alluses of Agent Orange.When dioxin contaminated material spread on a Missouri farm in 1971,
  • 28. hundreds of birds, 11 cats, 4 dogs and 43 horses died.In 1978 the EPA suspended spraying Agent Orange in national forests,due to increases in miscarriages in women living near forests that hadbeen sprayed.A 1979 study published in the JAMA by Bogen et al looked at 78 Vietnamveterans who reported Agent Orange exposures. Eighty percent reportedextreme fatigue. Over 60% had peripheral neuropathies, 73% haddepression, and 8% had attempted suicide. Forty-five per cent reportedviolent rages. Sudden lapses of memory were seen in 21%.A 1981 study by Pazderova et al. found one half of 80 exposed workershad metabolic disturbances, 23% peripheral neuropathies, and themajority, psychiatric changes, primarily depression and fatigue.In 1979, 47 railroad workers were exposed to PCBs including dioxin inMissouri when cleaning up a spillage from a damaged tank car that hadbeen filled with these chemicals. All were followed medically for sixyears. Their initial complaints included fatigue and muscle aches. Twocommitted suicide. Careful evaluations at Rush-Presbyterian Hospital,in Chicago, confirmed peripheral neuropathies (in 96%), depression(69%), tremors (78%), abnormal fatigue (91%), and muscle aches orcramp (51%). Half had cognitive problems, including problems withattention and concentration (50%) and slowed reaction times.These studies are all consistent with each other, and describe a verysignificant, multi-system illness affecting all parts of the nervoussystem, and causing fatigue and muscle aches. Some of the studiesdocumented additional organ dysfunction. This syndrome could be verydisabling.WHAT DID IT TAKE TO FORGET WHAT WE KNEW?By 1983, 9170 veterans had filed claims for disabilities that they said were caused by Agent Orange.The VA denied compensation to 7709, saying that a facial rash was the only disease associated withexposure.Congress passed the Veterans Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act of 1984in response. It required the VA to appoint a Veterans Advisory Committee on EnvironmentalHazards to review the literature on dioxin and submit recommendations to the head of the VA.According to Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, "The VA.directly contradicted its own established practice,promulgating instead the more stringent requirement that compensation depends on establishing acause and effect relationship," improperly denying the bulk of the claims.
  • 29. Four groups of impartial scientists were asked by Zumwalt to review the Advisory Committeetranscripts. Their comments are telling, and include the following:"The work of the Advisory Committee.has little or no scientific merit.""an inadequate process is being used to evaluate scientific publications for use in public policy.""less than objective."Unfortunately, the flawed scientific reviews didnt end with the VA committee. The CDC wasbrought in to add weight to the bogus analysis of dioxins effects. After 4 years and $63 million infederal funds, CDC concluded that an Agent Orange study could not be done based on militaryrecords, and furthermore concluded, without data, that veterans were never exposed to harmful dosesof Agent Orange!When the CDCs protocols were examined, however, it was found that three changes had been madeto its study in 1985, in an apparent attempt to dilute any negative effect that might be found.Congress learned in 1986 that administration officials, not scientists, had forestalled CDC researchon the effects of dioxin.In 1990, Senator Daschle disclosed additional political interference in the Air Forces Ranch Handstudy of Agent Orange effects. A 1984 draft reports conclusion was substantially altered, and thestudy was described as "reassuring."The Ranch Hand study is still ongoing, despite new allegations of fraudulent methodologies comingto light every few years. It will cost taxpayers over $100 million.Monsanto, a manufacturer of Agent Orange, was happy to duplicate the methods of federally fundedstudies. By omitting five deaths in the exposed group and putting four exposed workers in the controlgroup, they were able to hide a 65% higher death rate in the workers exposed at the Nitro plant.Another study of workers exposed in 1953 at a BASF plant was also shown to be falsified, as all thedata had been supplied by the BASF company.Thanks to the efforts of Admiral Zumwalt, who as the commanding Navy Admiral in Vietnam wasresponsible for some of the spraying, and whose son died from lymphoma, probably as a result ofdioxin exposure, many more illnesses were finally linked to Agent Orange, and have been madeservice-connectable over the past decade.But Zumwalt did not succeed at clearing the air regarding dioxins actual toxicity, nor did he stopfurther scientific shenanigans carried out by government and industry to hide the toxic effects ofother products, especially those to which our servicemen and women are exposed.In April 2000, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences tried to release a reportlisting dioxin as a carcinogen, but it was blocked by a lawsuit filed by an industry group. NIEHS hadtried to list dioxin as a carcinogen in 1991, but was not allowed to do so then. John Bucher, deputy
  • 30. director of the NIEHS, says, "Dioxin tends to increase the likelihood of all types of cancers" whileindustry representatives continue to claim there is insufficient evidence to link dioxin to healthproblems.Ellen Silbergeld, a University of Maryland toxicologist, responded, "I think the public should be madas hell about the [dioxin review] process and the way its been abused."AGENT ORANGE: 2002US and Vietnamese government scientists and international experts met last week in Hanoi todiscuss the effects of the "last significant ghost" of the Vietnam War: Agent Orange.Vietnam wants US help performing research and obtaining compensation. It blames Agent Orangefor tens of thousands of birth defects. The US and Vietnam did sign an agreement during the meetingto carry out joint research studies. But US ambassador Raymond Burghardt noted that developingresearch studies "that are definitive and address the underlying causes of disease in Vietnam" will bea "difficult task."Reporting on the conference, Reuters pointed out, "Observers say conclusive research could havefar-reaching and expensive consequences in terms of compensation claims for the US and AgentOrange makers, Dow Chemical and Monsanto."However, the US seems to think it has an ace in the hole. The US embassy made clear, at the time ofthe conference, that "US-Vietnam relations were normalized in 1995 after Vietnam dropped claimsof war reparations/compensation. At the time of normalization, neither compensation nor reparationswere granted or contemplated for the future."And, anyway, the US government has a fallback position. "Washington argues there is no hardevidence showing the defoliant caused specific illness," Reuters reported last week. And USgovernment scientists chimed in that any linkages to birth defects "would take many more years toprove."The well-documented story of dioxin and scientific perfidy provide a guidepost for how to assessgovernment-sponsored research, advisory committees, and regulatory decisions that impact on thehealth effects of toxic exposures, especially when the government may be liable for damages."Those Who Cannot Remember the Past Are Condemned to Repeat It"--George SantayanaRECOMMENDED READINGZumwalt ER. Report to the Secretary of the Department of VeteransAffairs on the association between adverse health effects and exposure
  • 31. to Agent Orange. DVA Report, 1990.Echobichon DJ. Toxic Effects of Pesticides, in Casarett and DoullsToxicology. Klaassen CD ed, McGraw-Hill, NY. 1996.Klawans HL et al. Neurologic problems following exposure to TCDD,dioxin. In Neurotoxins and their pharmacological implications, ed.Jenner P, 1987. Raven Press, NY.Welch, Craig. Dioxin debate growing hotter. Seattle Times May 29, 2000Agent Orange help needed now, Vietnam Red Cross says. Reuters, March5, 2002.~Agent Orange DangersThe most toxic dioxin was used in Agent Orange, the herbicide developed for military use. An April2003 study performed by Columbia University sought to re-examine military records of the VietnamWar. What the study found was that about 21 million gallons of herbicides were sprayed from 1961-1971, adding up to 1.84 million gallons.This figure was 10% greater than previously believed, and over half of the herbicides sprayed wereAgent Orange. Deadly illnesses associated to Agent Orange was not acknowledged by the Pentagonuntil years after Vietnam veterans were exposed to the dangerous herbicide. Laboratory studiesperformed in 1969 found that birth defects was linked to Agent Orange exposure, however the use ofthe herbicide was not discontinued until two years later, exposing 2.4 million Vietnam veterans to it,in addition to 5 million acres of forest with the majority of them still unrestored to date.According to the VA site, Agent Orange was sprayed from 1965 to April 1970. According to thepresident of Vietnam Veterans of Central Florida, “When it was being sprayed you knew it. It waseverywhere, for people who were on the ground, you could actually see it on their skin,” (OrlandoSentinel, 6/9/03). Dow, Monsanto, Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Hercules Inc., Uniroyal inc., T-H Agricultural & Nutrition Company, and Thompson Chemical Corporation all produced AgentOrange for military use and were included in the Agent Orange settlement.The Department of Veterans Affairs announced in 2003 that the link to chronic lymphocyticleukemia to Agent Orange exposed Vietnam veterans is so strong that benefits would automaticallybe given to any new diagnoses of it. There are as many as 1,000 new patients for chroniclymphocytic leukemia alone expected amongst Vietnam veterans. Since many of the diseasesassociated to Agent Orange exposure can take 20-30 years to develop, thousands of Vietnamveterans may have been excluded from the Agent Orange settlement in 1985.In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report linking Agent Orange to multiplemyeloma and other conditions. As more Agent Orange studies were performed more illnesses were
  • 32. linked to the herbicide. The VA has listed prostate cancer, respiratory cancers, multiple myeloma,type II diabetes, Hodgkin’s disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, soft tissue sarcoma, chloracne,porphyria cutanea tarda, peripheral neuropathy, and spinal bifidia in children of veterans exposed toAgent Orange as side effects of the herbicide.The recent Supreme Court issuance of Vietnam veterans to seek compensation from chemicalmanufacturers will allow the ability for justice to be given to victims unjustly exempted from theAgent Orange settlement. For years, Vietnam veterans have been unable to collect any damagesdespite the deadly illnesses suffered. Despite the lapse of time that has unfolded since the end of theVietnam War, illnesses are still being diagnosed and Vietnam veterans that have served theircountry have been denied rights.~Monsanto Keeps Up Attack on Seed Saving Farmers`As if U.S. farmers werent in enough trouble, now the "seed police" are after them. Monsanto, theworld leader in genetically modified grains, is pursuing fines and jail sentences for farmers who usetheir seed in noncontractual ways-such as saving it and sowing it the next season. The Center forFood Safety has released an investigative review of Monsantos use of U.S. patent law to crack downon farmers. Monsanto has filed 90 lawsuits against U.S. farmers in 25 states that involve 147 farmersand 39 small businesses or farm companies, according to the report.*500: The number of U.S. farmers under investigation annually by Monsanto.*$10 million: Monsantos annual budget (plus 75 staff) devoted to investigating and prosecuting U.S.farmers.*$15,253,602: The total recorded judgments granted to Monsanto for farmerlawsuits.*$3,052,800: The largest recorded judgment in favor of Monsanto as a result of a farmer lawsuit.*8 months: The prison sentence given to a Tennessee farmer convicted of violating an agreementwith Monsanto.Sources: "Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers 2005" (The Center for Food Safety); The Associated Press.http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CFSMOnsantovsFarmerReport1.13.05.pdf~The Story of Agent Orange`PART 1
  • 33. It is the war that will not end. It is the war that continues to stalk and claim its victims decades afterthe last shots were fired. It is the war of rainbow herbicides, Agents Orange, Blue, White, Purple,Green and Pink.This never-ending legacy of the war in Vietnam has created among many veterans and their familiesdeep feelings of mistrust of the U.S. government for its lack of honesty in studying the effects of therainbow herbicides, particularly Agent Orange, and its conscious effort to cover up information andrig test results with which it does not agree.STUDY CANCELEDOn August 2, 1990, two veterans groups filed suit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.,charging that federal scientists canceled an Agent Orange study mandated by Congress in 1979because of pressure from the White House.The four year, $43 million study was canceled, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)in Atlanta, because it could not accurately determine which veterans were exposed to the herbicideused to destroy vegetation in Vietnam.The American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America and other veterans groups are charging amassive government cover-up on the issue of herbicide exposure because of the hundreds of millionsof dollars in health care and disability claims that would have to be paid.The results of the scientific studies are rigged, claim many veterans, to exonerate the governmentwhich conducted the spraying and the chemical companies which produced the herbicides. Untilthere is a true study of the effects of Agent Orange, say the veterans - a study devoid of governmentinterference and political considerations, the war of the rainbow herbicides will go on.Charges of a White House cover-up have been substantiated by a report from the House GovernmentOperations Committee. That report, released August 9, 1990, charges that officials in the Reaganadministration purposely "controlled and obstructed" a federal Agent Orange study in 1987 becauseit did not want to admit government liability in cases involving the toxic herbicides.Government and industry cover-ups on Agent Orange are nothing new, though. They have beengoing on since before the herbicide was introduced in the jungles of Vietnam in the early 1960s.PLANTS GIVEN CANCERAgent Orange had its genesis as a defoliant in an obscure laboratory at the University of Chicagoduring World War II. Working on experimental plant growth at the time, Professor E.J. Kraus,chairman of the schools botany department, discovered that he could regulate the growth of plantsthrough the infusion of various hormones. Among the discoveries he made was that certain broadleafvegetation could be killed by causing the plants to experience sudden, uncontrolled growth. It wassimilar to giving the plants cancer by introducing specific chemicals. In some instances, deterioration
  • 34. of the vegetation was noticed within 24-48 hours of the introduction of the chemicals.Kraus found that heavy doses of the chemical 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) could inducethese growth spurts. Thinking this discovery might be of some use in the war effort, Kraus contactedthe War Department. Army scientists tested the plant hormones but found no use for them before theend of the war.Civilian scientists, however, found Kraus plant hormones to be of use in everyday life after the war.Chemical sprays that included 2,4-D were put on the market for use in controlling weeds in yards,along roads and railroad rights of way.ARMY EXPERIMENTS WITH DEADLY DEFOLIANTSThe Army continued to experiment with 2,4-D during the 1950s and late in the decade found a potentcombination of chemicals which quickly found its way into the Armys chemical arsenal.Army scientists found that by mixing 2,4-D and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) andspraying it on plants, there would be an almost immediate negative effect on the foliage. What theydidnt realize, or chose to ignore, was that 2,4,5-T contained dioxin, a useless by-product of herbicideproduction. It would be twenty more years until concern was raised about dioxin, a chemical theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) would later call "one of the most perplexing and potentiallydangerous" known to man.According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "The toxicity of dioxin renders it capable of killing somespecies of newborn mammals and fish at levels of five parts per trillion (or one ounce in six milliontons). Less than two millionths of an ounce will kill a mouse. Its toxic properties are enhanced by thefact that it can pass into the body through all major routes of entry, including the skin (by directcontact), the lungs (by inhaling dust, fumes or vapors), or through the mouth. Entry through any ofthese routes contributes to the total body burden. Dioxin is so toxic, according to the encyclopedia,because of this: "Contained in cell membranes are protein molecules, called receptors, that normallyfunction to move substances into the cell. Dioxin avidly binds to these receptors and, as a result, israpidly transported into the cytoplasm and nucleus of the cell, where it causes changes in cellularprocession."After minimal experimentation in 1961, a variety of chemical agents was shipped to Vietnam to aidin anti-guerilla efforts. The chemicals were to be used to destroy food sources and eliminate foliagethat concealed enemy troop movements.RAINBOW HERBICIDESThe various chemicals were labeled by color-coded stripes on the barrels, an arsenal of herbicidesknown by the colors of the rainbow, including Agent Blue (which contained arsenic), Agent White,Agent Purple, and the lethal combination of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, Agent Orange.
  • 35. On January 13, 1962, three U.S. Air Force C-123s left Tan Son Nhut airfield to begin OperationHades (later called Operation Ranch Hand), the defoliation of portions of South Vietnams heavilyforested countryside in which Viet Cong guerrillas could easily hide. By September, 1962, thespraying program had intensified, despite an early lack of success, as U.S. officials targeted the CaMau Peninsula, a scene of heavy communist activity. Ranch Hand aircraft sprayed more than 9,000acres of mangrove forests there, defoliating approximately 95 percent of the targeted area. Thatmission was deemed a success and full approval was given for continuation of Operation RanchHand as the U.S. stepped up its involvement in Vietnam.SIX TO TWENTY-FIVE TIMES STRONGER THAN RECOMMENDEDOver the next nine years, an estimated 12 million gallons of Agent Orange were sprayed throughoutVietnam. The U.S. military command in Vietnam insisted publicly the defoliation program wasmilitarily successful and had little adverse impact on the economy of the villagers who came intocontact with it.Although the herbicides were widely used in the United States, they usually were heavily dilutedwith water or oil. In Vietnam, military applications were sprayed at the rate of three gallons per acreand contained approximately 12 pounds of 2,4-D and 13.8 pounds of 2,3,5-T.The military sprayed herbicides in Vietnam six to 25 times the rate suggested by the manufacturer.In 1962, 15,000 gallons of herbicide were sprayed throughout Vietnam. The following year thatamount nearly quadrupled, as 59,000 gallons of chemicals were poured into the forests and streams.The amounts increased significantly after that: 175,000 gallons in 1964, 621,000 gallons in 1965 and2.28 million gallons in 1966.The pilots who flew these missions became so proficient at their jobs that it would take only a fewminutes after reaching their target areas to dump their 1,000-gallon loads before turning for home.Flying over portions of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia that had been sprayed, the pilots couldsee the effects of their work. Many of them adopted a grim fatalism about the job. Over the door ofthe ready room for Ranch Hand pilots at Tan Son Nhut Airport near Saigon hung this sign: "OnlyYou Can Prevent Forests."MAKERS KNEW OF DANGER TO HUMANSUnknown to the tens of thousands of American soldiers and Vietnamese civilians who were living,eating and bathing in a virtual omnipresent mist of the rainbow herbicides, the makers of thesechemicals were well aware of their long-term toxic effects, but sought to suppress the informationfrom the government and the public, fearing negative backlash.Of particular concern to the chemical companies was Agent Orange, which contained dioxin.Publicly, the chemical companies said dioxin occurred naturally in the environment and was notharmful to humans.
  • 36. Privately, they knew otherwise.A February 22, 1965 Dow Chemical Corporation internal memorandum provided a summary of ameeting in which 13 executives discussed the potential hazards of dioxin in 2,4,5-T. Following thatmeeting, Dow officials decided to meet with other makers of the chemical and formulate a stance onAgent Orange and dioxin.In March 1965, Dow official V.K. Rowe convened a meeting of executives of Monsanto, HookerChemical, which operated the Love Canal dump, Diamond Alkali, the forerunner of Diamond-Shamrock, and the Hercules Powder Co., which later became Hercules, Inc.According to documents uncovered only years later, the purpose of this meeting was "to discuss thetoxicological problems caused by the presence of certain highly toxic impurities" in samples of 2,4,5-T. The primary "highly toxic impurity" was 2,3,7,8 TCDD, one of 75 dioxin compounds.CONCERN OVER DIOXINS KEPT QUIETThree months later, Rowe sent a memo to Ross Mulholland, a manager with Dow in Canada,informing him that dioxin "is exceptionally toxic, it has a tremendous potential for producingchloracne (a skin disorder similar to acne) and systemic injury." Rowe ordered Mulholland in apostscript to the letter that "Under no circumstances may this letter be reproduced, shown or sent toanyone outside of Dow." Among those in attendance at one of the meetings of chemical companyofficials was John Frawley, a toxicologist for Hercules, Inc. In an internal memorandum for Herculesofficials, Frawley wrote in 1965 that Dow was concerned the government might learn of a Dowstudy showing that dioxin caused severe liver damage in rabbits. Dow was concerned, according toFrawley, that "the whole industry will suffer." Frawley said he came away from the meeting with thefeeling that "Dow was extremely frightened that this situation might explode" and lead togovernment restrictions.The concern over dioxins was kept quiet and largely out of the public view. The U.S. governmentand the chemical companies presented a united front on the issue of defoliation, claiming it wasmilitarily necessary to deprive the Viet Cong of hiding places and food sources and that it caused noadverse economic or health effects to those who came into contact with the rainbow herbicides,particularly Agent Orange.AIR FORCE KNEW OF HEALTH DANGERBut, scientists involved in Operation Ranch Hand and documents uncovered recently in the NationalArchives present a somewhat different picture. There are strong indications that not only weremilitary officials aware as early as 1967 of the limited effectiveness of chemical defoliation, theyknew of potential long-term health risks of frequent spraying and sought to keep that informationfrom the public by managing news reports.
  • 37. Dr. James Clary was an Air Force scientist in Vietnam who helped write the history of OperationRanch Hand. Clary says the Air Force knew Agent Orange was far more hazardous to the health ofhumans than anyone would admit at the time."When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the 1960s," Clary wrote in a 1988letter to a member of Congress investigating Agent Orange, "we were aware of the potential fordamage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the `militaryformulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the `civilian version, due to the lower cost andspeed of manufacture. However, because the material was to be used on the `enemy, none of us wereoverly concerned. We never considered a scenario in which our own personnel would becomecontaminated with the herbicide. And, if we had, we would have expected our own government togive assistance to veterans so contaminated."MILITARY DOWNPLAYS USE OF HERBICIDESAware of the concern over the use of herbicides in Vietnam, particularly the use of Agent Orange,the U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV), attempted to put the proper publicrelations spin on information concerning Operation Ranch Hand by announcing a "revision" in itspolicy on the use of herbicides.It was not so much a revision of the policy as it was an appearance of a revision of the policy as itwas an appearance of revision, as is evident in a memorandum signed by Gen. R.W. Komer, deputyto Gen. William Westmoreland for civil operations and RD support (CORDS)."The purpose of this exercise would be to meet criticisms of excessive use of defoliants by clarifyingthat they will no longer be used in large areas, while in reality not restricting our use of defoliants(since they are not now normally used in this area anyway). In addition, there would be an escapeclause . . . which would permit the use of defoliants even in the prohibited area provided that a strongcase could be made to MACV/JGS."Appearing to restrict the use of defoliants in this manner would (a) help meet US and Vietnamesecriticism of these operations; (b) increase peasant confidence so that they would grow more rice; (c)be of psywar (psychological warfare) value by suggesting that large areas were sufficiently pacifiedby now that large scale defoliants use was no longer necessary."But the idea that the spraying of herbicides could be confined to a limited area as suggested in thismemo was known to be futile as early as 1962.MIST DRIFTOne of the first defoliation efforts of Operation Ranch Hand was near a rubber plantation in January,1962.According to an unsigned U.S. Army memorandum dated January 24, 1966, titled "Use of
  • 38. Herbicides in Vietnam," studies showed that within a week of spraying, the trees in the plantation"showed considerable leaf fall.""The injury to the young rubber trees occurred even though the plantation was located some 500yards away and upwind of the target at the time of the spray delivery."The memo went on to say that "vapors of the chemical were strong enough in concentration to causethis injury to the rubber." These vapors, "appear to come from `mist drift or from vaporization eitherin the atmosphere or after the spray has settled on the vegetation."The issue of "mist drift" continued to plague the defoliation program. How far would it drift? Howfast? Wind speed and direction were of major concerns in answering these questions. Yet, there wereother questions, many of which could not be answered.What happened in humid weather?How quickly did the chemicals diffuse in the atmosphere or were they carried into the clouds anddropped dozens of miles away? How long would the rainbow herbicides linger in the air or on theground once they were sprayed?A November 8, 1967 memorandum from Eugene M. Locke, deputy U.S. ambassador in Saigon, onceagain addressed the problem of "mist drift" and "significant damage" to rubber plantations fromspraying earlier in the year.According to Locke, "the herbicide damage resulted from a navigational error; some trees in anotherplantation had been defoliated deliberately in order to enhance the security of a U.S. military camp.The bulk of the herbicide damage must be attributed, however, to the drift of herbicide through theatmosphere. This drift occurs (a) after the spray is released from the aircraft and before it reaches theground, and/or (b) when herbicide that has already reached the ground vaporizes during the heat ofthe day, is carried aloft, then moved by surface winds and eventually deposited elsewhere."There is a lack of agreement within the Mission regarding the distances over which the two kinds ofdrift can occur. When properly released (as required at 150 feet above the target, with winds of nomore than 10 mph blowing away from nearby plantations) herbicide spray should fall withreasonable accuracy upon its intended target. The range of drift of vaporized herbicide, however, hasnot been scientifically established at the present time. In recognition of this phenomenon and tominimize it, current procedures require that missions may be flown only during inversion conditions,i.e., when the temperature on the land and in the atmosphere produces downward currents of air.Estimates within the Mission of vaporized herbicide drift range from only negligible drift todistances of up to 10 kilometers and more."Ten kilometers and more. More than six miles. In essence, troops operating more than six miles fromdefoliation operations could find themselves, their water and their food doused with chemical agents,including dioxin-laced Agent Orange. And they wouldnt even know it.More than four months later, on March 23, 1968, Gen. A.R. Brownfield, then Army Chief of Staff,
  • 39. sent a message to all senior U.S. advisors in the four Corps Tactical Zones (CTZ) of Vietnam.Brownfield ordered that "helicopter spray operations will not be conducted when groundtemperatures are greater that 85 (degrees) Fahrenheit and wind speed in excess of 10 mph."But the concern was not for any troops operating in the areas of spraying, as was evident in thememo, but for the rubber plantations. The message ordered that "a buffer distance of at least two (2)kilometers from active rubber plantation must be maintained." No such considerations were given forthe troops operating in the area.PROJECT PINK ROSEOne of the U.S. governments worst planned and executed efforts to use herbicides was a secretoperation known as "Project Pink Rose."According to a recently declassified report on "Project Pink Rose," the operation had its genesis inSeptember 1965 when the Joint Chiefs of Staff received a recommendation from the Commander inChief Pacific "to develop a capability to destroy by fire large areas of forest and jungle growth inSoutheast Asia."On March 11, 1966, a test operation known as "Hot Tip" was documented at Chu Pong mountainnear Pleiku when 15 B-52s dropped incendiaries on a defoliated area. According to the declassifiedmemo, "results were inconclusive but sufficient fire did develop to indicate that this technique mightbe operationally functional."What neither the government nor the chemical companies told anyone was that burning dioxinssignificantly increases the toxicity of the dioxins. So, not only was the government introducingcancer causing chemicals into the war, it was increasing their toxicity by burning them.Nevertheless, "Project Pink Rose" continued.In November, 1966, three free strike target areas were selected: one in War Zone D and two in WarZone C. Each target was a box seven kilometers square. The target areas were double and triplecanopy jungle. The areas were heavily prepped with defoliants, the government dumping 255,000gallons on the test sites.The three sites were bombed individually, one on January 18, 1967, another January 28, 1967 andthe last on April 4, 1967. According to the memo, "the order and dates of strikes were changed toproperly phase Pink Rose operations with concurrent ground operations."Which means that U.S. and Vietnamese troops were living and fighting in these test sites on which255,000 gallons of cancer causing defoliants had been dumped.The results of "Project Pink Rose" were less than favorable.
  • 40. According to the memo, "The Pink Rose technique is ineffective as a means of removing the forestcrown canopy."The conclusion: "Further testing of the Pink Rose technique in South Vietnam under the existingconcept be terminated."DEFOLIANTS DUMPED ON PEOPLE AND INTO WATER SUPPLIESIn addition to the planned dumps of herbicides, accidental and intentional dumps of defoliants overpopulated areas and into the water supplies was not unusual, according to government documents.A memorandum for the record dated October 31, 1967, and signed by Col. W.T. Moseley, chief ofMACVs Chemical Operations Division, reported an emergency dump of herbicide far from theintended target.At approximately 1120 hours, October 29, 1967, aircraft #576 made an emergency dump ofherbicide in Long Khanh Province due to failure of one engine and loss of power in the other.Approximately 1,000 gallons of herbicide WHITE were dumped from an altitude of 2,500 feet.No mention was made of wind speed or direction, but chemicals dropped from that height had thepotential to drift a long way.Another memorandum for the record, this one dated January 8, 1968 and signed by Col. John Moran,chief Chemical Operations Division of MACV, also reported an emergency dump of herbicide, thistime into a major river near Saigon."At approximately 1015 hours, January 6, 1968, aircraft #633 made an emergency dump over theDong Nai River approximately 15 kilometers east of Saigon when the aircraft experienced severeengine vibration and loss of power. Approximately 1,000 gallons of herbicide ORANGE weredumped from an altitude of 3,500 feet."CHEMICAL COMPANY EMPLOYEES DEVELOP SKIN PROBLEMSThe chemical companies continued to insist that the herbicides in general, and Agent Orange inparticular, had no adverse effects on humans. This despite Dows concerns about human exposure toAgent Orange expressed internally in 1965 but hidden from the government. And this despiteevidence at the plants producing Agent Orange that workers exposed to it suffered unusual healthproblems.The Diamond Alkali Co. in Newark, New Jersey, was one of the major producers of Agent Orangefor the government. Spurred by Pentagon officials to make their production schedules to "help thewar effort," patriotic employees at Diamond Alkali eagerly sought to fill their quotas.But some of Diamond Alkalis employees began suffering what were described as "painful and
  • 41. disfiguring" skin diseases, according to the doctor who treated more than 50 of the employees in theearly and mid 1960s."They (the employees) were aware of what was going on," said Dr. Roger Brodkin, head ofdermatology at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey."No one worried much about the skin disease because everyone was determined to make productionschedules."Brodkin said he alerted state health officials of the problem, but got little response."They came out, all of them, said Brodkin. "They looked around and they said, `Ah hah, and left.Nothing was done."Brodkin later discovered that many of Diamond Alkalis employees involved in the manufacture ofAgent Orange were suffering a variety of ailments."We discovered that not only were these people getting skin disease, but they were also showingsome indication of liver damage," he said.It was not until 1983 that the state of New Jersey got around to testing the soil around the plant. Itfound hazardous levels of dioxin.New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean urged residents living within 300 yards of the plant to move.It was not until 1968 that scientists began raising some concerns about the use of the rainbowherbicides in Vietnam.STATE DEPARTMENT EXONERATES CHEMICAL COMPANIESPart of their concern came following a November 1967 study by Yale University botany ProfessorArthur Galston. Galston did some experiments with Agent Orange and other herbicides to determinewhether they were dangerous to humans and animals. Galston was unable to come to any definiteconclusions on Agent Orange, but advised that continued use of it might "be harmful" and haveunforeseen consequences.The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in the summer of 1968 sent aletter to the Secretaries of State and Defense urging a study to determine the ecological effects ofherbicide spraying in Vietnam.That letter prompted a cable from Secretary of State Dean Rusk to the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. Thecable, dated August 26, 1968, sought additional information but informed embassy officials of thetactic State was going to take in its reply to the AAAS."The Department of States proposed reply notes that the limited investigations of the ecological
  • 42. problem which have been conducted by agencies of the USG thus far have failed to reveal seriousecological disturbances, but acknowledges that the long-term effect of herbicides can be determineddefinitively only by long-term studies."Rusk suggested releasing "certain non-sensitive" portions of a study on the ecological effects ofherbicide spraying in Vietnam done earlier that year by Dr. Fred H. Tschirley, then assistant chief ofthe Corps Protection Research Branch, Corps Research Division of the U.S. Department ofAgriculture in Beltsville, Maryland. Tschirley went to Vietnam under the auspices of the StateDepartment early in 1968 and returned with exactly the report the U.S. government and the chemicalcompanies wanted.Tschirley foresaw no long-term ecological impact on Vietnam as a result of the herbicide spraying.In addition, in his report of April 1968, later reprinted in part in the February 21, 1969 issue ofScience magazine, Tschirley exonerated the chemical companies."The herbicides used in Vietnam are only moderately toxic to warm-blooded animals," Tschirleywrote. "None deserves a lengthy discussion except for Agent Blue (cacodylic acid), which containsarsenic."This despite evidence within the chemical companies that dioxin, the most toxic ingredient in AgentOrange, was responsible for health problems in laboratory animals and workers at the plants thatproduced the chemical."There is no evidence," Tschirley wrote, "to suggest that the herbicides used in Vietnam will causetoxicity problems for man or animals."Rusk urged Tschirleys report be made public. In his cable to Saigon, he wrote: "Its publicationwould not only help avoid some awkwardness for Tschirley, but would provide us with valuabledocumentation to demonstrate that the USG is taking a responsible approach to the herbicideprogram and that independent investigation has substantiated the Midwest Institutes findings thatthere have been no serious adverse ecological consequences."What Rusk did not mention was that Tschirleys report had been heavily edited, in essence changingits findings.USE OF CHEMICALS CONTINUES IN VIETNAMWhile the debate over the danger of Agent Orange and dioxin heated up in scientific circles, the U.S.Air Force continued flying defoliation sorties. And the troops on the ground continued to live in thechemical mist of the rainbow herbicides. They slept with it, drank it in their water, ate it in their foodand breathed it when it dropped out of the air in a fine, white pungent mist.Some of the troops in Vietnam used the empty Agent Orange drums for barbecue pits. Others storedwatermelons and potatoes in them. Still others rigged the residue laden drums for showers.
  • 43. Former Marine Danny Gene Jordan remembers sitting on Hill 549 near Khe Sanh in the spring of1968, waiting for night and cooking his C-rations. Jordan had been in country just a few weeks andwas still learning his way around, so he wasnt sure why the five C-123s approaching his unit wouldbe flying so low and in formation."Theyre defoliating," one of his buddies told him.Then came the mist, like clouds floating out of the back of the C-123s, soaking the men, their clothesand their food. For the next two weeks, the men of Jordans unit suffered nausea and diarrhea. Jordanreturned from Vietnam with an unusual amount of dioxin in his system. More than 15 years later, hestill had 50 parts per trillion, considered abnormally high. He also had two sons born with deformedarms and hands.The spraying continued unabated in 1968, even though, according to military records, it apparentlywas having minimal effects on the enemy. A series of memorandums uncovered in the NationalArchives and now declassified indicate that defoliation killed a lot of plants, but had little real effecton military operations.ADVANTAGES VERSES DISADVANTAGES DISCUSSEDAs early as 1967 it had become clear that herbicide spraying was having few of the desired effects.According to an undated and unsigned USMACV memorandum, Rand Corporation studies inOctober 1967, concluded "that the crops destruction effort may well be counterproductive."According to the memo, "The peasant, who is the target of our long range pacification objectives,bears the brunt of the crop destruction effort and does not like it."Col. John Moran, chief of the Chemical Operations Division of MACV, wrote a memorandum datedOctober 3, 1968, and titled "Advantages and Disadvantages of the Use of Herbicides in Vietnam"that provides some key insights into the defoliation program."The effect of defoliation on the enemy, in itself, is of little military value," Moran wrote. "Itsmilitary potential is realized only when it is channeled into selected targets and combined withcombat power to restrain the enemy from using an area or pay the cost in men and material fromaccurately delivered firepower."Disadvantages of defoliation were more numerous, according to the memorandum."The herbicide program carries with it the potential for causing serious adverse impacts in theeconomic, social and psychological fields," Moran wrote.Ecologically, according to the memorandum, "Semideciduous forests, especially in War Zone C andD, have been severely affected. The regeneration of these forests could be seriously retarded byrepeated applications of herbicide."
  • 44. An unsigned, undated memorandum written sometime late in 1968 provided even more details aboutthe negative impact of defoliation.Regarding the effect of VC/NVA combat and infiltration capability, the memo reported that "Veryfew PWs who have infiltrated even mention the effects of US herbicide operations. Some state thatthey have seen areas where the vegetation has been killed, but do not mention any infiltrationproblems caused by the defoliation. There are indications that US herbicide operations have had anegligible effect on NVA infiltration and combat operations."The psychological effects of defoliation, according to the memorandum, were twofold; they eitherhardened the resolve of the VC/NVA or angered the Vietnamese farmers whose crops weredestroyed."Some enemy soldiers may become more dedicated to the elimination of those who `ravage thecountryside. In addition, Allied herbicide operations may provide good material for enemypropaganda efforts aimed at fermenting an anti-US/GVN (Government of Vietnam) attitude amongthe population."The reaction of the civilians affected by herbicide spraying is even more noticeable according to thememo."The obvious reaction of the peasant whose labors have been destroyed is one of bitterness andhatred. He will frequently direct this hatred toward both the US/GVN, for accomplishing thedestruction, and the VC/NVA, for bringing it about. If he has previously leaned toward the VC, he islikely to side with them completely after the crop destruction. He is aided in making this decision bythe incessant propaganda of the VC cadre who decry the `barbarous crimes perpetrated by theAmericans and their lackeys."So, while Operation Ranch Hand provided no long or short term military benefits, it also providedneither long nor short term psychological benefits. If anything, it embittered the civilian populationof Vietnam and drove it closer to the Viet Cong and NVA. And no one yet was sure what eventuallywould be the effect on the health of those exposed to the chemicals. Operation Ranch Hand wasshown by late 1968 to be a bankrupt strategy, one devoid of good sense, good planning or goodintentions.ORANGE AEROSOL DISCOVEREDMeanwhile, the military continued to learn just how toxic Agent Orange could be. On October 23,1969, an urgent message was sent from Fort Detrick, Maryland, to MACV concerning cleaning ofdrums containing herbicides. The message provided detailed instructions on how to clean the drumsand warned that it was particularly important to clean Agent Orange drums."Using the (Agent) Orange drums for storing petroleum products without thoroughly cleaning ofthem can result in creation of an orange aerosol when the contaminated petroleum products areconsumed in internal combustion engines. The Orange aerosol thus generated can be most
  • 45. devastating to vegetation in the vicinity of engines. Some critics claim that some of the damage tovegetation along Saigon streets can be attributed to this source. White and Blue residues are less of aproblem in this regard since they are not volatile."Not only was Agent Orange being sprayed from aircraft, but it was unwittingly being sprayed out ofthe exhausts of trucks, jeeps and gasoline generators.In March 1969, Lt. Col. Jim Corey, deputy chief of CORDS in I Corps reported to his boss, R.M.Urquhart, unusual defoliation in Da Nang."A large number of beautiful shade trees along the streets in the city of Da Nang are dead or dying,"Corey wrote. "This damage appears to be entirely a result of defoliation chemicals."There was no evidence of insect or fungus damage to the vegetation, according to the memo."In every instance of tree and garden plot damage," Corey wrote, "empty defoliant barrels are eitherpresent in the area or have been transported along the route of the damage."The use of herbicides was not confined to the jungles. It was widely used to suppress vegetationaround the perimeters of military bases and, in many instances, the interiors of those bases.LAB TESTS ON ANIMALS CURTAIL SOME USE OF AGENT ORANGENevertheless, the use of Agent Orange throughout Vietnam was widespread through much of 1969.Then, late in the year a study done by Bionetics Research Laboratories showed that dioxin causeddeaths and stillbirths in laboratory animals. The tests revealed that as little as two parts of dioxin pertrillion in the bloodstream was sufficient to cause deaths and abnormal births. And some GIs werereturning home from Vietnam with 50 parts per trillion, and more, in their bloodstream.When the report was released by the Food and Drug Administration, the White House, on October29, 1969, ordered a partial curtailment of the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam.On November 4, 1969, a message went out from Joint Chiefs of Staff to Commander in Chief Pacific(CINCPAC) and MACV."A report prepared for the National Institute of Health presents evidence that 2,4,5-T can causemalformation of offspring and stillbirths in mice, when given in relatively high doses. This materialis present in the defoliant (Agent) Orange."Pending decision by the appropriate department on whether this herbicide can remain on thedomestic market, defoliation missions in South Vietnam using Orange should be targeted only forareas remote from population. Normal use of White or Blue herbicides can continue, but large scalesubstitution of Blue for Orange will not be permitted."
  • 46. USE OF AGENT ORANGE FINALLY ENDEDDespite the order, some troops continued to use Agent Orange when they ran out of the otherrainbow herbicides. Finally, in early 1971, the U.S. Surgeon General prohibited the use of AgentOrange for home use because of possible harmful effects on humans and on June 30, 1971, allUnited States defoliation operations in Vietnam were brought to an end.VETS BEGIN DEVELOPING HEALTH PROBLEMSAs soldiers who had served in Vietnam attempted to settle back into civilian life following theirtours, some of them began to develop unusual health problems. There were skin and liver diseasesand what seemed to be an abnormal number of cancers to soft tissue organs such as the lungs andstomach. There also seemed to be an unusually high number of birth defects among children born toVietnam veterans who had been exposed to Agent Orange. Some veterans experienced wild moodswings, while others developed a painful skin rash known as chloracne. Many of these veterans werefound to have high levels of dioxin in their blood, but scientists and the U.S. government insistedthere was no link between their illnesses and Agent Orange.In the mid 1970s, there was renewed interest in dioxin and its effects on human health following anindustrial accident in Seveso, Italy, in which dioxin was released into the air, causing animal deathsand human sickness.EPA BANS USE OF AGENT ORANGE IN U.S.Then, in 1979, the Environmental Protection Agency banned the use of Agent Orange in the UnitedStates when a large number of stillbirths were reported among mothers in Oregon, where thechemical had been heavily used.While veterans clamored for help from the Veterans Administration, the government respondedeither slowly, or not at all. In 1979, a National Veterans Task Force on Agent Orange was formedand legislation finally was passed by Congress at the urging of Rep. Tom Daschle (D-SD), aVietnam veteran who became a U.S. Senator, to commission a large scale epidemiological study ofveterans who had been exposed to the herbicide.That proved to be only the beginning of the battle over Agent Orange.Over the next four years, the VA examined an estimated 200,000 veterans for medical problems theyclaimed stemmed from Agent Orange and other herbicides used in Vietnam. But many of thoseexamined were dissatisfied with their examinations. They claimed the exams were done poorly andoften in haste by unqualified medical personnel. Many veterans also claimed that the VA seemed tohave a mind set to ignore or debunk Agent Orange connected disability complaints.CLASS ACTION SUIT FILED
  • 47. Fed up with what they perceived as government inaction on the Agent Orange issue, veterans filed aclass action lawsuit in 1982 against the chemical companies that had made Agent Orange. Amongthe companies named were Dow Chemical Co. of Midland, Michigan; Monsanto Co. of St. Louis,Missouri; Diamond Shamrock Corp. of Dallas, Texas; Hercules Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware;Uniroyal Inc. of Middlebury, Connecticut; Thompson Chemical Corp. of Newark, New Jersey andthe T.H. Agriculture and Nutrition Co. of Kansas City, Missouri.By the early 1980s, some of the chemical companies dirty little secrets about dioxin were beginningto leak out.TIMES BEACHTimes Beach was an idyllic little community of about 2,200 residents in the rolling farmlands ofeastern Missouri 20 miles southwest of St. Louis. It was an ideal place to live and raise children, withplenty of open spaces, two story wood frame houses, quiet streets and none of the pollution, povertyor crime of the inner city.Or so it seemed.Unknown to the residents of Times Beach, for several years in the mid 1970s, dioxin laced oil hadbeen sprayed on the towns roads to keep down the dust. Times Beach was one of 28 easternMissouri communities where the spraying had been done. But none of the others had the levels ofdioxin contamination of Times Beach, parts of which had dioxin levels of 33,000 parts per billion, or33,000 times more toxic than the EPAs level of acceptance.The contamination was so bad that the government decided the only way to save the towns residentsfrom further damage from dioxin was to buy them out and move them out.In early 1983, the U.S. government spent $33 million buying the 801 homes and businesses in TimesBeach and relocating its 2,200 residents. The entire town was fenced in and guards were brought into keep out the curious. "Caution, Hazardous Waste Site, Dioxin Contamination," read the signsleading into Times Beach.What had been a comfortable little community became a ghost town. It remains a ghost town todaybecause of dioxin contamination.So, while the government was paying off the residents of Times Beach because of dioxincontamination, it continued to deny that Vietnam veterans who had been exposed to Agent Orangeand its dioxin were at risk.AMA DOWNPLAYS DIOXIN DANGERWhile the government was busily buying up Times Beach and evacuating its residents, the American
  • 48. Medical Association was coming under attack from environmental health specialists for its stance ondioxin. In its June 1983 convention, the AMA adopted a resolution calling for a public informationcampaign on dioxin to "prevent irrational reaction and unjustified public fright.""The news media have made dioxin the focus of a witch hunt by disseminating rumors, hearsay andunconfirmed, unscientific reports," the resolution read, in part.That position was overwhelmingly supported by President Ronald Reagan in a speech at the AMAconvention, calling the resolution "a positive step toward a more reasonable public debate" on theissue.But Dr. Samuel Epstein, professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the University ofIllinois Medical Center in Chicago, called the AMA "incompetent and ignorant" for its stance ondioxin."The AMAs contribution in this area is a profound disservice and consistent with their establishedrecord of extreme conservatism and lack of information and demonstrated lack of concern forpreventive medicine," said Epstein.And Dr. Paul Wiesner, an assistant director of the CDC said that "Evidence is increasing that there isan association with a rare form of tumor called soft tissue sarcoma after occupational exposure (todioxin)."STUDIES CONTRADICTORY AND CONFUSINGBy 1983, the results of studies of Agent Orange and dioxin exposure began to trickle in. They were,for the most part, contradictory and confusing. A series of studies conducted between 1974 and 1983by Dr. Lennart Hardell, the so called Swedish studies, showed a link between exposure to AgentOrange and soft tissue sarcomas and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. And in July 1983, the Department ofHealth and Human Services (HHS) released a report citing "an association" between dioxin exposureand incidence of soft tissue sarcoma."The early warning sign has gone up," said Dr. Edward Brandt, Jr., assistant secretary of the HHS.This was also the year of the Times Beach buy out and growing nationwide concern over dioxin.Few people knew what it was and only Vietnam veterans and researchers knew what it could do tothe human body.In December 1983, the EPA announced a nationwide plan to clean up more than 200 dioxincontaminated sites, including 50 plants where 2,4,5-T had been manufactured. The cost of thecleanup was put at $250 million and was expected to take four years.But barely two months later, in February, 1984, the U.S. Air Force released the first part of a threepart study on Operation Ranch Hand pilots and crewmen. It concluded that the 1,269 pilots andcrewmen involved in the herbicide spraying program in Vietnam suffered no higher death or serious
  • 49. illness rates than the general population.But to Vietnam veterans, studying aircrews who had handled drums of Agent Orange, and not thesoldiers exposed to it, was like testing the crew of the Enola Gay for the effects of radiation, not thesurvivors of Hiroshima.Said Maj. Gen. Murphy Chesney, deputy Air Force Surgeon General: "Do I worry as a physicianbecause we used it? The answer is no. I say war is hell, youve got to win it. Agent Orange was a waragent. It was used to protect our ground troops. It saved millions of lives possibly, thousands,anyway, in Vietnam."MACV memorandums written during the war did not support Chesneys claims that Agent Orangesaved lives, but no one questioned him on his conclusions because those documents were stillclassified.The VA, meanwhile, continued to dismiss veterans health complaints if they dealt with exposure toAgent Orange."A lot of veterans are scared because of early news reports of physical damage, while some amongany large number of people are going to have health problems such as a matter of routine naturalincidence," said Dr. Barclay Shepard, director of Agent Orange Studies for the VA. "Put thattogether with disillusionment over the Vietnam War and anger with the government and there is littlewonder that many veterans truly believe that they have in some way been hurt. But the evidence hasnot supported a cause and effect relationship."LAWSUIT SETTLED - VETS WIN, BUT LOSEThen on May 7, 1984, came the news that the Agent Orange lawsuit, filed two years earlier, had beensettled. Prodded by U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, attorneys for the veterans and thechemical companies reached an agreement at 4 a.m. the morning the case was to go to trial. At thattime, 15,000 veterans and their relatives were involved in the suit, but about 250,000 subsequentlyfiled claims.Under the terms of the settlement, the Vietnam veterans who claimed exposure to Agent Orangewould receive $180 million from the chemical companies. But those companies did not have toaccept blame for any injuries that occurred as a result of Agent Orange. The U.S. government wasnot a party to the litigation."Thus resolution is a compassionate, expedient and productive means of meeting the needs of thepeople involved," said David Buzzelli, vice president of government and public affairs for DowChemical.Veterans at first were ecstatic."This is a defeat for the chemical companies. We brought them down to their knees and we got an
  • 50. open admission of guilt," said Rod Rinker of Atlanta, one of the veterans who claimed Agent Orangeexposure.Not so, said the chemical companies."When you look at the overwhelming scientific evidence, Agent Orange is not a reasonable or likelycause of the ill health effects experienced by the veterans," said R.W. Charlton, another Dowspokesman.Despite the release earlier of the results of the Operation Ranch Hand study, 1984 seemed to be ayear in which the Vietnam veterans complaints about Agent Orange and the health problems itcaused were being taken seriously. The federal court decision boosted the morale of the AgentOrange claimants. Then Congress chimed in.In late 1984, Congress passed Public Law 98-542, designed to provide compensation for soft tissuesarcoma and required the VA to establish standards for general Agent Orange and atomic radiationcompensation.It seemed as if the veterans were winning. But every time a veteran went to the VA seekingcompensation for Agent Orange related problems, he was turned away."Since 1984, Public Law 98-542 has been virtually ignored," said South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle."In spite of the intent of Congress, in spite of the efforts of everyone involved in the writing of thatlaw, in spite of our promises to veterans at that time that at long last, after all these years, they wouldbe given the benefit of the doubt, not one veteran in this country has been compensated for anydisease other than chloracne."Agent Orange sufferers tried on several occasions to sue the government for its role in use of theherbicide, but their suits were routinely dismissed because of what has come to be known as theFeres Doctrine. In 1950, the Supreme Court ruled in a case involving the death of a military man thatthe government is not responsible for deaths, injuries or other losses related to military service.Meanwhile, the reality of the settlement reached in the lawsuit with the seven chemical companiesbegan to settle in. The lawyers involved wanted $40 million off the top for their fees. They haddecided in a secret agreement prior to the May 1984 settlement that they would receive a 300 percentreturn on any investment in time and effort they had made. Many veterans charged that this secret feeagreement by the plaintiffs management committee precluded any incentive for the committee torepresent the veterans in the suit. Judge Weinstein decided to give the lawyers $9.2 million.It became readily apparent that $180 million just wasnt enough to take care of the Agent Orangeclaimants and their families, which had reached more than 200,000 by then. A master plan to dividethe settlement noted that the settlement "is simply not large enough." The plan suggested taking $130million for a settlement to provide cash payments to eligible veterans or the families of deceasedmembers. Maximum cash payments of $12,800 to the most qualified claimants, or about 17,000veterans and their survivors, was suggested. The master plan also suggested using $52 million tofund a "class assistance foundation" earmarked for benefit programs.
  • 51. TEST RESULTS CONTINUE TO BE MIXEDResults of Agent Orange tests continued to be mixed. The results varied greatly, depending on whowas doing the testing.In December, 1985, the Air Force released the third of its Operation Ranch Hand studies. Itconfirmed the other two: that there was no evidence that Agent Orange had any adverse affects onthose who handled it during the war."At this time, there is no evidence of increased mortality as a result of herbicide exposure amongindividuals who performed the Ranch Hand spray operation in Southeast Asia," the Air Forceconcluded.But in April, 1986, the CDC released a report that showed that the residents of a mobile home parknear St. Louis were suffering from liver and immune system damage as a result of their exposure todioxin laced chemicals.According to the study, the 154 residents of Quail Run Mobile Home Park in Gray Summit,Missouri, near Times Beach southwest of St. Louis, showed depressed liver function and deficienciesin their immune systems. The dirt roads in the mobile home park had been sprayed in 1971 withdioxin laced oil to keep down the dust.While the CDC seemed concerned about Missouri residents exposed to dioxin laced chemicals, it didnot demonstrate the same concern for Vietnam veterans exposed to dioxin contaminated herbicides.In fact, information began to surface in 1986 that the CDC not only was dragging its feet on AgentOrange studies, it was deliberately ignoring information to which it had access in order to come upwith results that would be favorable to the government.In the summer of 1986, the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care heldhearings to assess the progress of the CDC study of Agent Orange, mandated seven years earlier.Testimony from witnesses from the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) shocked and angeredmembers of the committee, according to Sen. Tom Daschle."OTA reported that the Centers for Disease Control had changed the protocol for the study withoutauthorization," said Daschle. "OTA also reported at that particular hearing that petty arguments atCDC were interfering with the studys progress and that progress had virtually come to a standstill."After seven years of study, the CDC had made no progress on one of the most important and highlypublicized issues of the war in Vietnam.In charge of the CDC study was Dr. Vernon Houk, director of the agencys Center for EnvironmentalHealth and Injury Control. The White Houses Agent Orange Working Group was supposed tosupervise the CDC study while the Pentagons Environmental Support Group was charged withproviding the CDC with records of Agent Orange spraying and troop deployment.
  • 52. Houks CDC team complained throughout the study that those records were too spotty to make ascientific study of the effects of Agent Orange on soldiers.Not so, said the Pentagon. Richard Christian, head of the Pentagons Environmental Support Group,testified before Congress in mid 1986 that the records of troop movements and spraying were morethan adequate for a scientific study.Christians testimony was bolstered by two other sources. Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Murray hadbeen asked by Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger in early 1986 to undertake a study to determineif Pentagon records were adequate for purposes of the study. After four months, Murray alsodetermined that the records for a comprehensive study of Agent Orange were more than adequate.In addition, the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, had used outsideconsultants to study reports of troop deployment and Agent Orange spraying to determine if theywere sufficient for CDC purposes. Its conclusion: the Pentagon had the necessary records. TheInstitute of Medicine also was highly critical of the CDC research methods, charging that it excludedfrom its study the veterans most likely to have been exposed to Agent Orange.WHITE HOUSE COVER-UPDespite information from three sources that there were adequate records available for a comprehensive CDC study on Agent Orange, the White House and CDC sought to cover it up.First, the Institute of Medicines study was never turned over to the White House. Then, Murraydecided that as a non-scientist, he was in no position to challenge the objections of CDCs Houk anddeferred to his judgement on the matter of records. Then, according to Daschle, the Pentagon camedown hard on Christian for criticizing the CDC."DOD officials altered his follow-up testimony before it was sent to the Hill, deleting his informationchallenging CDCs claims," said Daschle.By mid 1986, the White House had set the wheels in motion to cancel the CDCs Agent Orangestudy.There were other indications that the Reagan administration had no real interest in studies of AgentOrange or dioxin. In late 1986, the House Energy and Commerce Committee learned that the WhiteHouses Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was trying to stop all dioxin research, claimingthat enough research had been done.Despite efforts to shut down research and cover up results of studies not favorable to the governmentor chemical companies, evidence continued to flow in showing a definite statistical link betweencancers and exposure to Agent Orange and dioxin:- A 1986 study by the National Cancer Institute of Kansas revealed that farmers exposed to 2,4-D, an
  • 53. ingredient of Agent Orange, had six times more non-Hodgkins lymphomas than farmers notexposed.- A VA study released in 1987 showed that Marines who served in areas of Vietnam that had beenheavily sprayed with Agent Orange had a 110 percent higher rate of non-Hodgkins lymphomas. Thestudy also showed these Marines had a 58 percent higher rate of lung cancers.- A 1987 study in the state of Washington showed veterans who had been exposed to Agent Orangehad significant increases in soft tissue sarcomas and non-Hodgkins lymphomas.- A 1987 VA study showed veterans who were most likely exposed to Agent Orange had eight timesmore soft tissue sarcoma than other veterans.Meanwhile, the CDC had been taking blood samples of 646 Vietnam veterans, selected on the basisof probable exposure to Agent Orange, to test the level of dioxin in their blood. Other scientists werehighly critical of this method of testing, but the CDC moved on.Then, in September 1987, the CDC exonerated Agent Orange, claiming once again there were notsufficient records available to make the necessary tests."We cannot find a sufficiently large number of people who have been exposed to do a scientificallyvalid study of exposure to Agent Orange," said Houk."We looked at three different kinds of exposure: short-term, long-term and exposure from being in anarea of Vietnam where the herbicide was used. In none of these groups was there any difference inthe level of Agent Orange in the blood."Houk recommended that the Agent Orange study be canceled. The White House agreed, and shortlyafter that the CDCs $43 million Agent Orange study came to an end with a not guilty verdict forAgent Orange.~`Stop the MASSACRE`
  • 54. Proverb:A good person leaves an inheritance to their children’s children.What kind of inheritance are you leaving?Monsanto FOOD POLICE
  • 55. **Codex Alimentarius!** The FOOD POLICE!... HR 875 - S 425...No Organic Farming or Backyard Gardening Will Be Allowed!This bill is sitting in committee and I am not sure when it is going to hit the floor. One thing I do know is that very few of the Representatives have read it. As usualthey will vote on this based on what someone else is saying. ~ Lydia ScottUrge your members to read the legislation and ask for opposition to this devastatinglegislation. Devastating for everyday folks but great for factory farming ops like Monsanto,ADM, Sodexo and Tyson to name a few.I have no doubt that this legislation was heavily influenced by lobbyists from huge foodproducers.This legislation is so broad based that technically someone with a little backyard garden couldget fined and have their property siezed.It will effect anyone who produces food even if they do not sell but only consume it.It will literally put all independent farmers and food producers out of business due to the hugeamounts of money it will take to conform to factory farming methods.If people choose to farm without industry standards such as chemical pesticides and fertilizersthey will be subject to a variety of harassment from this completely new agency that has neverbefore existed. Thats right, a whole new government agency is being created just to policefood, for our own protection of course.DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, READ THIS LEGISLATION FOR YOURSELF. Themore people who read this legislation the more insight we are going to get and be able to share. Post your observations and insights below. Urge your members to read this legislation and tooppose the passage of this legislation.Pay special attention to • Section 3 which is the definitions portion of the bill-read in its entirety. • section 103, 206 and 207- read in its entirety.Red flags I found and I am sure there are more........... • Legally binds state agriculture depts to enforcing federal guidelines effectively taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for the federal dept. • Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesnt actually use the word organic. • Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.
  • 56. • Effects anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game. • Legislation is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal. There are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation is. • Section 103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation. It will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and interpret the legislation. Who do you think they are going to side with? • Section 206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be enforced up all food production facilities. The wording is so broad based that a backyard gardener could be fined and more. • Section 207 requires that the states agriculture dept act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements. This takes away the states power and is in violation of the 10th amendment. • There are many more but by the time I got this far in the legislation I was so alarmed that I wanted to bring someones attention to it. (to the one person who reads my blog)Didnt Stalin nationalize farming methods that enabled his administration to gaincontrol over the food supply?Didnt Stalin use food to control the people?Last word... Legislate religion and enforce gag orders on ministers on what can and cant be said inthe pulpit, instituting regulations forcing people to rely soley on the government, control the moneyand the food. What is that called? It is on the tip of my tongue...I havent read any of the Senates version of the bill as I have been poring thru the Houses version. Here is the link and I hope some of you can take a look and post your observations and insightsbelow. One thing I am pretty sure of is that very few if any Senators have actually read thelegislation and when it comes up for a vote they will more than likely take someone elses word onhow they should vote. The other thing I am pretty sure about is that the legislation was probablywritten by lobbyists and industry experts.S 425http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-425Stop the MONSANTO Henchmen in Congress from destroying ourcountryDoes MONSANTO have a BODY BAG with your CHILD’s name on it?http://food307.livejournal.com/645.htmlhttp://food306.livejournal.com/629.html
  • 57. MONSANTO Genetically Engineered Food: How DANGEROUS to CHILDERN?http://food305.livejournal.com/565.htmlMONSANTO MEN - Henchmen - in the USA GovernmentIs your CONGRESSMAN a Monsanto BUTCHER?http://bigoil600142.insanejournal.com/475.htmlhttp://www.campaignfinance.org/stateshttp://www.publicintegrity.orgMonsantos Agent Orange - DEAD BABIES & DEAD VETERANSStop the Baby Killers.http://food308.livejournal.com/670.htmlhttp://food310.livejournal.com/512.htmlMonsanto Keeps Up Attack on Seed Saving Farmershttp://food309.livejournal.com/633.htmlProverb:The field of the poor may yield much food, but it is swept away by injustice.Things you can do 1. Contact your members at 202-224-3121 and ask them to oppose HR 875 and S 425. While you are at it ask them if they personally have read the legislation and what their position is? If they have not read the legislation ask them to read it and politely let them know that just because other representitives are not reading the legislation and voting on it does not mean they can do the same. 2. Get in touch with local farmers and food producers by attending a local farmers market and asking them how business is. 3. Attend a local WAPF meeting, this is a good start to learning about what is going on in farming and local & state initiatives . The website is http://www.westonaprice.org/localchapters/index.html 4. Check out the Farmers Legal Defense Fund at http://www.ftcldf.org/index.html 5. Find out who sits on your states agriculture and farming committee and contact them with your concerns. 6. Continue to contact your elected officials and let them know your position on legislation and why. 7. Get active at the local and state levels, this is the quickest way to initiate change. HR 875 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-875
  • 58. S 425 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-425 Organic Consumer http://www.organicconsumers.org http://organicconsumers.org/ACO/index.cfm Acres USA http://www.acresusa.comSMALL FARMS FEAR New Food Safety Regulationshttp://food303.livejournal.com/586.htmlTOXIC WASTE Fertilizer - KILLING Farmers and POISONING theirFieldshttp://food304.livejournal.com/512.htmlThe BENEFITS of ORGANIC FOODhttp://food302.livejournal.com/613.htmlWHATS WRONG with the FOOD and DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)DVDSuper Size Me Educationally Enhanced; director: Morgan SpurlockCancer, Nutrition & Healing; director Jerry BrunettiHoxsey, How Healing Becomes A Crime; director: Ken AusubelBOOKWhen Healing Becomes a Crime; by Kenny Ausubel
  • 59. Please STOP the MONSANTO BUTCHERS from PUTTING PEOPLE in PRISON and ConcentrationCampsPlease WRITE TO POLITICIANS and OPPOSE THIS LEGISLATIONTHANK YOUARE YOU DRIVING A General Motors NAZI Hitler CAR?http://bigcoal108.insanejournal.com/375.htmlKeep the NUTS away from the NUKESNazis in the American Militarythe Final Solutionhttp://bigoil600141.insanejournal.com/298.htmlNeo Nazi Hit List = Are you next?http://bigoil600144.insanejournal.com/495.html
  • 60. booksOne Woman Against the Reich by Helmut W. ZiefleBehind Enemy Lines by Marthe CohnShanghai Diary by Ursula BaconPrisoner and Yet by Corrie ten BoomA Testament to Freedom by Dietrich Bonhoeffer~Small Farms Fear New Food Safety Regulations`Small-scale Organic Family Farmers are growing increasingly vocal about their concerns regardingthe new legislation.The problem, they say, is that small farmers, who are most accountable for their foods freshness andhealth, may suffer the heaviest burden under proposed new food rules."A lot of people worry that whats on the books right now is very much geared toward the biggestagricultural players," said Patty Lavera, assistant director of the nonprofit consumer group Foodand Water Watch. "Its sort of a one-size-fits-all approach, and when its one size fits all, its usuallywritten by the big guy."Small-scale farmers say the big companies have the funds and staff to comply with the rules, and thatfactory farms that specialize in mass-producing one item are better positioned to comply withmandates to establish food safety plans for every product they sell."A small farm is much more likely to grow multiple things and have a diversified approach,"Lavera said. "So if they have to take 19 steps for each of those crops, its much harder for them than alarge farm that only grows one or two things."Small farmers argue that they are already much more accountable to their customers for the qualityof their product than are mass-production facilities, and that they will be crushed under the weightof the new laws aimed at large industrial offenders.
  • 61. Particularly burdensome are proposed standards for record-keeping, they say. While the DeLauro billwould allow for paper record-keeping, the Dingell bill mandates electronic record-keeping. Smallfarm operations fear that such a rule would involve establishing an expensive and time-consumingsystem that could put them out of business.Examining Calif. programA new California program that regulates leafy greens illustrates how small farmers who practicesustainable methods can be the unintentional targets of laws aimed at industrial offenders, Baden-Mayer said.Critics say the rules unfairly penalize small farmers who grow crops and raise cattle on the samefarm (http://www.polyfacefarms.com ) , while failing to address what they believe is the root of theE. coli problem -- large, mismanaged feedlots that cram cattle together and spew waste runoff.Do regulators understand small farms?Still, critics say regulators suffer from a lack of understanding of small farm operations, and that itshows when rules are drafted.Small-farm advocates say the language gives too little weight to a farming operations scale -- acritical flaw that could put them out of business.This legislation is so broad based that technically someone with a little backyard garden could get fined and havetheir property siezed.It will effect anyone who produces food even if they do not sell but only consume it.It will literally put all independent farmers and food producers out of business due to the hugeamounts of money it will take to conform to factory farming methods.If people choose to farm without industry standards such as chemical pesticides and fertilizers theywill be subject to a variety of harassment from this completely new agency that has never beforeexisted. Thats right, a whole new government agency is being created just to police food, for ourown protection of course.`DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, READ THIS LEGISLATION FOR YOURSELF. Themore people who read this legislation the more insight we are going to get and be able to share. Post your observations and insights below. Urge your members to read this legislation and tooppose the passage of this legislation.
  • 62. Pay special attention to • Section 3 which is the definitions portion of the bill-read in its entirety. • section 103, 206 and 207- read in its entirety.Red flags I found and I am sure there are more........... • Legally binds state agriculture depts to enforcing federal guidelines effectively taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for the federal dept. • Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesnt actually use the word organic. • Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it. • Effects anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game. • Legislation is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal. There are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation is. • Section 103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation. It will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and interpret the legislation. Who do you think they are going to side with? • Section 206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be enforced up all food production facilities. The wording is so broad based that a backyard gardener could be fined and more. • Section 207 requires that the states agriculture dept act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements. This takes away the states power and is in violation of the 10th amendment. • There are many more but by the time I got this far in the legislation I was so alarmed that I wanted to bring someones attention to it. (to the one person who reads my blog)~TOXIC WASTE Fertilizer - KILLING Farmers and POISONING their Fields`BOOK REVIEWFateful Harvest: The True Story of a Small Town, Global Industry, and a Toxic Secretby Duff WilsonAs corporations are denying their practice of recycling such industrial toxic waste as arsenic,beryllium, cadmium, and dioxins into common plant food and fertilizers, Fateful Harvest: TheTrue Story of a Small Town, a Global Industry, and a Toxic Secret (HarperCollins; September 13,2001; $26.00; hardcover), by award-winning investigative reporter Duff Wilson, exposes the real-lifestory of embattled mayor Patty Martin as she discovers this alarming practice in her small town ofQuincy, Washington.As livestock die, children fall ill, and cancer cases multiply, Martin, a mother of four, and a smallband of farmers face threats and intimidation in a town torn between their health concerns and the
  • 63. moneyed interests.Toxic waste is spread on crops, even so-called organic crops, to save industry money.Wilson found heavy metals, chemicals and radioactive wastes being recycled as fertilizer andspread over fields across the nation - and eventually served for dinner.Not only does Wilson expose recycling run amok, he also reveals how the reckless practice iscurrently accepted around the world, without the knowledge of unsuspecting farmers andgardeners.Developed from a series of articles from the Seattle Times that was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize forPublic Service, Fateful Harvest specifically documents how Martin discovered that Cenex/LandOLakes (the butter and chemical makers) poured dangerous waste into a concrete pond and"sprayed these toxins into the sky like a fountain." Says Wilson, "the spray turned to mist thatchildren walked through on their way to school." Cenex got rid of the residue by calling itfertilizer and spreading it on a farmers land; crops wilted, horses died.The book also examines other companies, such as Alcoa Aluminum, which sold toxic waste as"Road Clear" (ice melting product) and "Ag-Mag" (fertilizer). Because of the growing use of thesehazardous fertilizers - more widespread, ironically, since a 1976 federal law cracked down ondumping toxic wastes, raising the cost of landfills and safer recycling -- scientists have founddangerous levels in some wheat, rice, peanuts, leafy vegetables, dirt, dust, and fertilizer workersblood.Martin is part of a larger group of concerned citizens, activists, and environmental agencies all overthe country of concerned environmentalists and safe-food activists who are trying to get thegovernment to act before the effects are irreversible.In conclusion, Wilson argues, "Im angry were taking toxic chemicals unsafe in air and waterand putting them on the very fields that grow the food our children eat.Diluting it doesnt assure me. Calling it a product is duplicitous. Minimizing it is sickening. No onehas seriously added up the amount of toxic acid, ash, slag, dust, and other industry waste beingspread in the guise as fertilizer on the land that grows our food.No one has told the farmers, the gardeners, and consumers what theyre risking in order for somepolluting industries to save money. I hope this book sounds an alarm."MORE GOOD READINGLiving Downstream : A Scientists Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environmentby Sandra SteingraberEasy to read and engrossing look by a scientist at the links between cancer and chemicals in theenvironment.Fast Food Nation
  • 64. by Eric SchlosserNo more Happy Meals- ever!~A Fateful Harvest And A Cautionary Tale, A Few Thoughts From Jeffrey Hollender, President~Faithful readers will remember that a few issues back we reviewed a new book called FatefulHarvest, the True Story of a Small Town, a Global Industry, and a Toxic Secret, by Duff Wilson.The book follows an investigative trail of secrets and sickness from a single small town to theheadquarters of global fertilizer companies that are covertly adding toxic waste to their products. It’sa stunning tale and one that’s really about much more than fertilizer.In a nutshell, here’s the story Fateful Harvest tells... Patty Martin, mother of four and mayor of thesmall town of Quincy, Washington, started noticing something amiss in her community. Crops werefailing, topsoil was being rendered infertile, and people were falling prey to rare diseases.When she started asking questions about the unusual patterns she saw, Martin didn’t find too manypeople willing to talk. Nonetheless, the source of her town’s troubles soon became clear: a fertilizerproduct manufactured with industrial toxic sludge from a nearby waste pond had been applied tolocal fields. The sludge contained high concentrations of poisonous heavy metals like cadmium,chromium, and beryllium, and these materials had leached into the soil and were taken up by thecrops that grew there.From there, the story was picked up by writer Duff Wilson who was surprised to find that regulatoryloopholes large enough to drive a John Deere combine through allow producers of hazardous wasteto take this sort of twisted creative license with their effluent all the time. Materials that under anyother circumstances would be headed at great expense for disposal at a hazardous waste processingfacility instead are relabeled as "soil amendments", combined with nitrogen, and pawned off on anunsuspecting public as fertilizer. Everyday, with a simple semantic switch, industries are"recycling" their toxic by products into a profitable commodity.The only thing worse than the dreadful immorality of this ethically vacant practice is the end result: awide dissemination into the environment of highly toxic compounds that are, worse still, released inthe exact places where we grow our food. Crops absorb these materials as they grow and weabsorb them when we eat the crops. Things like carcinogenic chemicals, heavy metals, arsenic,lead, dioxins, even radioactive substances.All deliberately dumped. On our food.What really struck me though were the similarities between the willful poisoning of our land andfood supply, and the willful poisoning of our homes. Industries with toxic waste on their hands getaway with this because there are no laws to stop them, and any suggestions to make some are quicklyquelled by an army of lobbyists.
  • 65. Users rarely realize what they’re really dealing with because (except now in Washington State)fertilizers are subject to no ingredient disclosure. In the end, our plates turn into test tubes, and weturn into guinea pigs in an ongoing experiment to see just how much low level poisoning we cantake. Since no one’s yet stepped forward with definitive evidence that these food-borne exposuresare dangerous, they’re assumed to be safe until proven otherwise and the practice is allowed tocontinue.Sound familiar? It should. Thats the same scenario that allows deadly chemicals into our homesdisguised as household cleaners that provide us with neither meaningful ingredient disclosure noradequate safety warnings.As with cleaning products, its the Precautionary Principle turned on its head. You and I, the public,are left both holding the bag and trying frantically to fill it with scientifically acceptable contrarytruths while companies are allowed to profit as they pollute our environment, our homes, and ourbodies in the questionable name of profit. Meanwhile, anyone with even just three or fourfunctioning brain cells can tell you how things in our little corporate-sponsored research project aregoing to turn out.People are going to get sick and some are going to die. Which in effect turns the burden of proofwe’re being so illogically asked to provide into a dark accounting of accumulated death and disease.If Im being too blunt, I apologize. But maybe its time for a little straight talk to the people in chargeof things like fertilizers and floor polish. If so, Ive got a question that’s blunter still. How manypeople have to perish before we cross the threshold of definitive proof? A thousand? Ten thousand?More?How many lives must be destroyed by illness before this obvious madness stops?How many damaged children do we have to count before the cease and desist order comesthrough?I say no more. Weve got enough evidence and even if we didnt, were all smart enough to make abare minimum baseline prediction about what’s going to happen to a world that molecule bymolecule is slowly becoming saturated with toxic compounds...Nothing good.Thats why its time to take control. Its clear that we can no longer wait for criminally irresponsiblecompanies and a tacitly complicit government to respond to the dangers represented by waste-lacedfertilizer and chemical-laden cleaners. And its clear in a post-September 11th world in which somuch is already beyond our control that we must take personal responsibility for everything wepossibly can.Whether its cleaning products or fertilizer, that means refusing first to use such products at all. Butmore than that it means no longer accepting the dominant paradigm, asking others to join in itsrejection, and demanding change aggressively and loudly if necessary.
  • 66. At a bare minimum, we need complete ingredient disclosure on products like fertilizer and cleanersso consumers can make informed decisions about their homes and their health. Taking things further(which would be a wise thing to do), we should only permit the sale and use of those chemicals thathave been conclusively proven safe beyond all reasonable doubt.We should demand an end to the innocent-until-proven-guilty approach to consumer chemicals thatassumes a substance is safe until uncontrolled tests conducted on a unsuspecting general public showit to be unfortunately otherwise.One of the most important things we need is a national Right-to-Know law that would requirecompanies to fully disclose all the pollutants they release and all the chemicals that are found in theirproducts. In recent years, members of Congress have repeatedly attempted to introduce suchlegislation, but industry lobbying has so far successfully kept all of these various efforts bottled upin committee. Public pressure could reverse this trend.To that end, and as a first step, I offer a sample letter of support below. Please consider sending it orsomething like it to your Senators and Representatives, and to the editor of your local paper as well.Let’s stop the intentional contamination of our world and ourselves. And let’s stop it right now.SAMPLE LETTER:Dear (Senator or Representative):I am writing to ask you to support broad expansion of the existing toxics release Right-to-Know law.Less than 5% of toxic pollution is currently reported to the public even though the Office ofTechnology Assessment estimates that as many as 40 billion pounds of pollutants may be releasedinto the environment each year. We need to protect and expand the public’s right to know about allhazardous materials that are being used and/or emitted by industry regardless of their type or thequantities involved. To that end, I ask that you sponsor or support new Right-to-Know legislationthat would require: * Full reporting about all chemicals and toxic materials transported through our neighborhoods;found in the workplace; contained in consumer products; and released into the environment. * Full reporting by all industries of the types and quantities of chemicals and toxic materials theyproduce, transport, handle, use, and emit. * Industries to inform parents if foods or products contain chemicals that may cause cancer, orreproductive, endocrinological, or neurological harm, or have not yet been conclusively shown to becompletely safe.I have a fundamental right to know about all the toxic chemicals in my community, my workplaceand my home. I hope you will work to protect this right by making expanded Right-to-Knowlegislation your highest priority in the current session of Congress.
  • 67. Sincerely,~Duff Wilson, an investigative reporter for the Seattle Times, wrote “Fateful Harvest” in 2001 as asummary of the complex and shocking story about the use of toxic waste in American fertilizer.Yeah, it sounds too ridiculous to be true, but it happened, and is happening today, mostly because somany people make money doing it and it solves two real problems: what to do with toxic waste andhow to make cheap agricultural fertilizers.The book reads like a mystery—since the original question of what was killing farmers andpoisoning their fields around the small eastern Washington town of Quincy ignited the controversy.The book also reads like a science fiction nightmare—after all, what kind of society would poisonitself by recycling toxic waste from steel mills, foundries, and manufacturing plants into fertilizer?And the book reads like a heroic feminist novel—since the person who first raised the issue, and whonever backed down despite all the formal and informal pressure brought against her to push her tosilence, was the mayor of Quincy, Patty Martin.Duff Wilson is a good enough writer that his readers, even his cynical readers, are dragged along ashe learns about Martin’s crusade, and finally becomes a believer, and then writes a series ofinvestigative articles for the Times that almost got him a Pulitzer.The point of the book is that manufacturers were stuck with piles of toxic by-products containingheavy metals and dioxin, among other very nasty things, and needed a way to legally get rid of thejunk. They found their solution in fertilizer companies who bought the hazardous waste and called itan ingredient (thus circumventing waste recycling rules) and then spread the waste material onfarmers’ fields.The result was cheap fertilizer, but with the toxic consequence of soil buildup of heavy metals, plusthe serious problems of poisons that migrated to plants, animals, and people.Yes, this crazy waste recycling process continues today. And Patty Martin is still involved in fightingit (see her Web site).If you care about what people eat or what is splattered across America’s farmland, this is a bookworth reading.Stop the KILLING FIELDSSave our children and grandchildren~
  • 68. ~dvd: Super Size Me; director: Morgan Spurlockhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/5658213http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Medvd: Killer at Large, Why obesity is Americas greatest threat; director: Steven Greenstreethttp://worldcat.org/oclc/317962830book: The Book of Jewish Values; by Joseph Telushkinhttp://worldcat.org/title/oclc/41601215 http://librarything.com/work/58359book: Fast food nation; by Eric Schlosserhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/45248356 http://librarything.com/work/3735dvd: Fast Food Nation; director: Richard Linklaterhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/77539187book: Empty Harvest; by Bernard Jensenhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/170954616 http://librarything.com/work/1237077book: Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy Of Industrial Agriculture; Andrew Kimbrellhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/48013826 http://librarything.com/work/241618book: Fateful Harvest: The True Story of a Small Town, a Global Industry, and a ToxicSecret; by Duff Wilsonhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/46565121 http://librarything.com/work/569636http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateful_Harvesthttp://safefoodandfertilizer.org/index.htmlbook: Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills; by Russell L Blaylockhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/44960035 http://librarything.com/work/854055dvd: Foodmatters; director: James Colquhounhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/428736140book: The Truth About Caffeine; by Marina Kushnerhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/61209940 http://librarything.com/work/1269843book: The Truth About Coffee; by Marina Kushnerhttp://librarything.com/work/8358177
  • 69. book: Silent Spring; by Rachel Carsonhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/561302 http://librarything.com/work/23937dvd: Food Inc; director: Robert Kennerhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/429531017http://worldcat.org/oclc/297529846http://librarything.com/work/8401882http://www.foodincmovie.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food,_Inc.http://scribd.com/doc/43528259book: Unforgiven: The American Economic System Sold for Debt And War; by CharlesWaltershttp://worldcat.org/oclc/50949802http://librarything.com/work/1189392http://books.google.com/books?id=LqntAAAACAAJbook: Raw Materials Economics; by Charles Waltershttp://worldcat.org/oclc/27752946http://librarything.com/work/8937126http://books.google.com/books?id=3vw4AAAACAAJdvd: King Corn; director: Aaron Woolfhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/213373700http://kingcorn.nethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Corn_%28film%29http://sustainabletable.org/features/articles/kingcorn/book: Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry Lies About the Safety of the GeneticallyEngineered Foods Youre Eatinghttp://worldcat.org/oclc/53122034http://librarything.com/work/453446http://seedsofdeception.comhttp://responsibletechnology.orgbook: Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods;by Jeffrey Smithhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/77541620http://librarything.com/work/3361962http://gmwatch.orghttp://scribd.com/doc/41584887http://books.google.com/books?id=EctxAAAACAAJbook: The World According to Monsanto; by Marie-Monique Robinhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/286490848http://librarything.com/work/5155236
  • 70. http://books.google.com/books?id=7RqYQwAACAAJdvd: The World According to Monsanto; director:http://worldcat.org/oclc/317415694http://foodmatters.tv/_webapp_270153/The_World_According_to_Monsantohttp://films.nfb.ca/monsantohttp://greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/monsanto_movie080307http://documentarywire.com/the-world-according-to-monsantodvd: Food Fight; director: Chris Taylorhttp://foodfightthedoc.comdvd: Ingredients; producer: Brian Kimmelhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/608387521http://ingredientsfilm.comhttp://facebook.com/notes.php?id=101225708412&notes_tab=app_2347471856book: Animal Factory: The Looming Threat of Industrial Pig, Dairy, and Poultry Farms toHumans; by David Kirbyhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/428027213http://librarything.com/work/9398107http://books.google.com/books?id=VQ9sXDyYN64Cbook: Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution; by Gerald Markowitzhttp://librarything.com/work/1113868Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy; by Kevin Baleshttp://librarything.com/work/220673dvd: The Future of Food; by Deborah Koons Garciahttp://thefutureoffood.comhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/63134852dvd: Fresh; by Ana Sofia Joaneshttp://worldcat.org/oclc/402895065http://freshthemovie.combook: Free for All: Fixing School Food in America; by Janet Poppendieckhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/317461908http://librarything.com/work/8402346http://organicconsumers.org/articles/article_21072.cfmhttp://organicconsumers.org/school/school-lunch.cfmhttp://janetpoppendieck.com/free_for_all.htmlbook: Third World America: how our politicians are abandoning the middle class andbetraying the American dream; by Arianna Stassinopoulos Huffington
  • 71. http://worldcat.org/oclc/609529688http://librarything.com/work/10233699book: Disconnect: The Truth about Cell Phone Radiation; by Devra Davishttp://environmentalhealthtrust.orghttp://worldcat.org/oclc/526057538http://librarything.com/work/10261957book: We Dont Die We Kill Ourselves: Our Foods Are Killing Us!; by Roger L De Haanhttp://scribd.com/doc/45109088 http://worldcat.org/oclc/83766162http://librarything.com/work/2633326book: Politically Incorrect Nutrition; by Michael Barbeehttp://worldcat.org/oclc/55803425 http://librarything.com/work/607609Acute Pesticide Poisoninghttp://calameo.com/books/000640845afcfc05a6da3http://scribd.com/doc/52078426Acute Pesticide Poisoning Among Farm Workershttp://calameo.com/books/0006408450a480716be58http://scribd.com/doc/52078673ACUTE PESTICIDE POISONING: A MAJOR GLOBAL HEALTH PROBLEMhttp://calameo.com/books/00064084595afe926eddchttp://scribd.com/doc/52078623Africa - Up in Smoke - Global Warming Vulnerabilityhttp://calameo.com/books/0006408721ce0e71fb175http://scribd.com/doc/52108700Agriculture at a Cross Roadshttp://calameo.com/books/000640845286b867b9e57http://scribd.com/doc/52078756Agriculture: Investing in Natural Capitalhttp://calameo.com/books/000640845fda9c91e726ahttp://scribd.com/doc/52078803Agroecology - How to Feed the World Without Destroying Ithttp://calameo.com/books/00064084501bee5821e4ahttp://scribd.com/doc/52078837Agroecology and Sustainable Developmenthttp://calameo.com/books/0006408456a4cf227865ahttp://scribd.com/doc/52078908
  • 72. Atrazine - most commonly detected Pesticides in Ground Waterhttp://calameo.com/books/000640845ca1f30e42543http://scribd.com/doc/52078928Biodiversity as Tool for Adapting to Global Warming - Lessons from the Fieldhttp://calameo.com/books/000640845f8b8cbfbd21ahttp://scribd.com/doc/52078984Bioenergy for the Poorhttp://calameo.com/books/000640845a1192cbec8e0http://scribd.com/doc/52079028Childhood pesticide poisoninghttp://calameo.com/books/000640845cf16ce4f1cb8http://scribd.com/doc/52079062Climate Change and Food Securityhttp://calameo.com/books/00064084542aba091e895http://scribd.com/doc/52079120Climate Change Impacts - Destruction of Africa Forest-Dependent Rural Livelihoodshttp://calameo.com/books/000640872886dfcc1a847http://scribd.com/doc/52108738Communities in Peril - Global impacts of Pesticide Usehttp://calameo.com/books/0006408720a23c5ae3e93http://scribd.com/doc/52079180Connecting the Dots - Biodiversity, Adaptation and Food Securityhttp://calameo.com/books/000640845c55c74b0e283http://scribd.com/doc/52079279Ecological Agriculture: Mitigating Climate Change, Providing Food Security & Self-Reliancefor Rural Livelihoods in Africahttp://calameo.com/books/000640872df0d5d8ed27ahttp://scribd.com/doc/52108752Ecogical Agriculture - Providing Food Security, Mitigating Climate Change,http://calameo.com/books/000640845e99deb03dd7ahttp://scribd.com/doc/52079369Environmentally Sustainable Development - The Importance of Womenhttp://calameo.com/books/000640845550997234d73http://scribd.com/doc/52079422
  • 73. Family Fruit Farmers: Poisoning by Pesticideshttp://calameo.com/books/0006408450bac19747754http://scribd.com/doc/52079483Farm Worker Exposure to Pesticideshttp://calameo.com/books/000640845044b9e753aefhttp://scribd.com/doc/52079516Farm Workers Poisoned in Pesticide Drift Accidenthttp://calameo.com/books/00064084553d618cd7008http://scribd.com/doc/52079566Farmworker Health Factshttp://calameo.com/books/000640845a6d295238c50http://scribd.com/doc/52079641Fields of Poison: California Farmworkers and Pesticideshttp://calameo.com/books/0006408450460dedaaf32http://scribd.com/doc/52079697Global Wariming Impact on Fiji Food Security and Povertyhttp://calameo.com/books/000640845056c7d01e539http://scribd.com/doc/52079764Global Wariming Impact on Food Security in the Pacific - Vanuatuhttp://calameo.com/books/00064084512133b94c27bhttp://scribd.com/doc/52079824Global Warming Impacts on the Achievement of the Millennium Development Goalshttp://calameo.com/books/0006408456c307b9e86bfhttp://scribd.com/doc/52080130Global Warming Economic Impacts on Tanzania and Deforestationhttp://calameo.com/books/000640845a1d2e64bfd58http://scribd.com/doc/52079909Global Warming Impact on Nepalhttp://calameo.com/books/000640845247227c64cf2http://scribd.com/doc/52080001Global Warming Impact on Uganda - Integral Farm-Household Managementhttp://calameo.com/books/000640845036826ae754chttp://scribd.com/doc/52080189Global Warming Impact on World Fisherieshttp://calameo.com/books/000640845842d5f1b4658
  • 74. http://scribd.com/doc/52080059Global Warming Mitigation in Pastoralism Dry Landshttp://calameo.com/books/00064087225c0a5c71418http://scribd.com/doc/52107003Global Warming Mitigation Practitioner’s Handbookhttp://calameo.com/books/000640872cb4e15f474f8http://scribd.com/doc/52107082Green Economy Initiativehttp://calameo.com/books/0006408722f60c5fcfc41http://scribd.com/doc/52107137Health Hazards of Peticides in Pakistanhttp://calameo.com/books/000640872a9e9ca92cfefhttp://scribd.com/doc/52107154How to Assist the Small Scale Farmerhttp://calameo.com/books/0006408729314a9d4ff76http://scribd.com/doc/52107170How to Mainstream Climate Change Adaptation for Agriculturehttp://calameo.com/books/000640872bc6fbe7ba2e9http://scribd.com/doc/52107181Indian Farmers Suffering from Toxic Pesticideshttp://calameo.com/books/0006408723a8a940f9a55http://scribd.com/doc/52107229Kenyan Farm Workers: Poisoning by Pesticideshttp://calameo.com/books/0006408724ea97eff7f9fhttp://scribd.com/doc/52107250Lessons for Climate Change Adaptationhttp://calameo.com/books/0006408720d149d012d7bhttp://scribd.com/doc/52107270Natural Capital - The New Political Imperativehttp://calameo.com/books/00064087216784dc54acchttp://scribd.com/doc/52107299Natural capitalism - Path to Sustainabilityhttp://calameo.com/books/0006408726865bcbe881fhttp://scribd.com/doc/52107320
  • 75. Negative Impact of Global Warming on Coffee Productionhttp://calameo.com/books/000640872be931d8fee0ahttp://scribd.com/doc/52107344Organic Agriculture - a Guide to Climate Change and Food Securityhttp://calameo.com/books/000640872ef8d659a01b4http://scribd.com/doc/52109191Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africahttp://calameo.com/books/000640872c4353847ad1chttp://scribd.com/doc/52107379Organic agriculture and Global Warminghttp://calameo.com/books/0006408723f4886eec04fhttp://scribd.com/doc/52107399Organic Agriculture and the Global Food Supplyhttp://calameo.com/books/000640872cb883e25a18bhttp://scribd.com/doc/52107427Organic Agriculture for IMPROVED Food Security in Africahttp://calameo.com/books/0006408729a9df4bdc0fahttp://scribd.com/doc/52107455Organic Solutions to Climate Change and Food Securityhttp://calameo.com/books/00064087284c1e39c1b17http://scribd.com/doc/52107474Pesticide exports to the Third Worldhttp://calameo.com/books/00064087213780bdd5d69http://scribd.com/doc/52107495Pesticide Poisoning Killing Asian Farm Workershttp://calameo.com/books/00064087289b1e91b291chttp://scribd.com/doc/52107544Pesticide Poisoning of Residents Near Farm Fieldshttp://calameo.com/books/000640872410684ed82e2http://scribd.com/doc/52107563Pesticide Safety Laws Fail to Protect Farmworkershttp://calameo.com/books/0006408725f66aec819f8http://scribd.com/doc/52107576Pesticide Use and Health Costshttp://calameo.com/books/000640872e6327a044830
  • 76. http://scribd.com/doc/52107597PESTICIDES AND WOMEN AGRICULTURAL WORKERS IN SOUTH AFRICAhttp://calameo.com/books/0006408726e68a3e81dcehttp://scribd.com/doc/52107613Pesticides Are Dangeroushttp://calameo.com/books/000640872e8480cab16d0http://scribd.com/doc/52107626Pesticides Are Poisonhttp://calameo.com/books/00064087250920f70d439http://scribd.com/doc/52107646Pesticides poison Colorado farm workershttp://calameo.com/books/000640872ce96b4413a69http://scribd.com/doc/52107662/Plight of the Farmworker - Episcopal Farmworker Ministryhttp://calameo.com/books/000640872051f8d94eff8http://scribd.com/doc/52107699Reforestation and Organic Farming is improving Soil Fertility and Increasing Crop Yields inAfricahttp://calameo.com/books/000640872d32c0fcb225chttp://scribd.com/doc/52107730Reforestation helps Vulnerable Populations Adapt to Global Warminghttp://calameo.com/books/0006408721ba63a8b370ehttp://scribd.com/doc/52108247Survivors of Pesticide Poisoning - Say No to Methyl Iodidehttp://calameo.com/books/000640872ce2e18cd4b1chttp://scribd.com/doc/52108274The Hidden Problems of Child Farm Workershttp://calameo.com/books/000640872bdd32ce0eb36http://scribd.com/doc/52108329Towards Sustainable Agriculturehttp://calameo.com/books/0006408729436a6f8540ahttp://scribd.com/doc/52108374Traditional food crops as a source of community resiliencehttp://calameo.com/books/00064087217e5dbb8f0e4http://scribd.com/doc/52108433
  • 77. What Can Be Done to Curtail Pesticide Poisoning Impactshttp://calameo.com/books/00064087212ee18efa6b6http://scribd.com/doc/52108536Women are the Key to Food Security and Rural Developmenthttp://calameo.com/books/000640872a0565fe28ea5http://scribd.com/doc/52109289Women in Agriculture - Making a Strong Case for Investing in Womenhttp://calameo.com/books/000640872c05e2fa33e2chttp://scribd.com/doc/52108598Zero-Waste Agriculture - Organic Berry Farmhttp://calameo.com/books/000640872ad603c73eb50http://scribd.com/doc/52108620book: Internal Combustion; by Edwin Blackhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/69021042http://books.google.com/books?id=S0DDjjjD5gwChttp://www.internalcombustionbook.com~book: Does the Bible Teach Nutrition; by Elizabeth Bakerhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/39785982 http://librarything.com/work/3961650http://scribd.com/doc/45056870MIRACLE IN WISCONSIN – a different kind of school lunchhttp://feingold.org/PF/wisconsin1.htmlhttp://foodrevolution.org/askjohn/43.htmhttp://gmfreeschools.orghttp://advancedhealthplan.com/miracleschool.htmlhttp://puppetgov.com/2009/01/14/miracle-in-wisconsin-a-different-kind-of-school-lunchbook: The Bible Cure; by Dr. Reginald Cherryhttp://worldcat.org/oclc/3889804http://librarything.com/work/355159~