A Moving Story of a Mother

You can still watch it on Facebook!

My Story
A moving story of a mother.AVAILABLE SUBTITLES: Arabic, Bulgarian, Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Hebrew, Hindi, Italian, Lithuanian, Persian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish and Turkish (click the CC option on the player).Courtesy of: Mercy For Animals
Posted by Best Video You Will Ever See on Saturday, June 13, 2015

How to Prevent Alzheimer’s Disease—A Neurologist Speaks Out

Alzheimer's disease is currently at epidemic proportions, with 5.4 million Americans—including one in eight people aged 65 and over—living with it. There is no known cure, and few truly effective treatments

Research suggests the best hope is in prevention focusing on exercise and diet, specifically replacing carbohydrates with higher amounts of healthful fats, and moderate amounts of high-quality protein

Gluten sensitivity appears to be involved in most chronic disease, including those affecting the brain, because of how gluten affects your immune system. Glucose and fructose,(sugars) and carbohydrates can also have powerfully toxic effects

Preventing and treating neurological disorders requires severe restriction of gluten and casein. You also need to address your gut flora

Source

Filthy Business - Stop paying the price for factory farming (EU)

By Compassion in World Farming

Economic pressures on farmers, such as the low price they are paid for milk, have led to extreme breeds of dairy cow who are able to produce up to ten times the natural amount of milk, pushed by a constant cycle of feeding and milking.

Demand better farming today

Every single year, billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are spent by the EU on farm subsidies. A percentage should be used to help farmers invest in changes that will improve the lives of their animals. One study shows, for example, that giving indoor-housed cows access to pasture cuts BY HALF the risk of them becoming lame.

Together we can deliver better farming for Europe – but we need your support. Join us now in taking the action below to alert your MEPs and add your voice to the campaign against the filthy business of factory farming.

The European Union’s policymakers like to boast about high quality farming, often portraying healthy and happy animals pottering in pastures and farmyards. This is of course an absurdly false notion.

Every year, 80% of farm animals in the EU* spend their days confined in sheds, pens and even cages; many growing at an unnatural rate with little to do but eat grain and imported soya; billions dying in under-regulated slaughterhouses or prematurely from injury or exhaustion. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

*Estimated using figured for numbers of farmed animals from Eurostat and FAOSTAT

The more European citizens that voice their demand for EU decision makers to support more humane, sustainable forms of animal husbandry, the closer we are to ending the filthy business of factory farming.

Lameness is the scandalous secret suffered in silence by far too many of the EU's 23 million dairy cows. The factory farming approach of milking cows for 'all they are worth' is becoming increasingly common in much of Europe, including the UK. The strain on their bodies causes exhaustion. The huge volume of milk held in their udders – weighing 15kg (15 bags of sugar!) or more – makes it hard for them to walk normally. And all this brings the risk of painful problems with their hooves and legs.

Add your voice to ask for change in the way the EU spends the subsidies it gives to farmers, so that we move towards better farming practices in the UK and the EU.

Filthy Business – a new campaign to eradicate factory farming in the EU

Filthy Business aims to rid the EU of factory farming, starting with changes to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which allocates huge subsidies to farmers. We want a percentage of the £45 billion per year that Europe's farmers receive from EU taxpayers to subsidise better farming rather than intensive systems that subject animals to a life of misery and pain.

Right now, our farming future is in the hands of your MEPs

MEPs are discussing how these subsidies should be spent right now. Please help us to support better farming by urging your MEPs to push for more financial support for farmers who are humane towards animals, and who don't devastate the environment as they farm. Write to your MEPs and demand better farming now.

http://action.ciwf.org.uk/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=119&ea.campaign.id=12471

Dr. Shiv Chopra on rBGH

Internationally renowned natural health physician and Mercola.com founder Dr. Joseph Mercola and Dr. Shiv Chopra talk about Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH).

RGBH in Milk May Increase Your Breast Cancer Risk

Your breast cancer risk can increase if you ingest milk contaminated with Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH).

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/23/rgbh-in-milk-increases-risk-of-breast-cancer.aspx?e_cid=20111023_SNL_Art_1

Food Inc.

Know where your food is coming from and vote for change through your food choices and with your wallet!

Life with a newborn: Identifying food allergies

By Modern Alternative Mama

I hate to say it, but I have more knowledge on this topic than I ever wanted.... Primarily with my first two babies, although I've noted that Jacob is sensitive to food additives. It's not too bad because I basically can eat anything I make at home (no 'food groups' to avoid), but I do have to prepare everything myself!

These days, a lot of babies are allergic to foods, and these allergies or sensitivities show up within days to weeks of birth. It can happen in formula-fed babies (which can require trying several different types of formula, including special hydrolyzed formulas in severe cases), but it can also happen in breastfed babies. That's what my experience has been with -- allergies in breastfed babies.

Why Are Breastfed Babies Allergic?

Babies cannot be allergic to breastmilk itself. They can, however, be allergic to something that the mother is eating and passing along in her breastmilk.

This can happen when a mother's gut health is not optimal. What she eats doesn't get fully digested before some of it is absorbed through a leaky gut wall ("leaky" because there are places that aren't populated by the beneficial bacteria that should be there). These undigested proteins get into the breastmilk and get passed to the baby, whose system can't handle it. This leads to sensitizing the baby and causing allergies. The baby's gut is open at birth and remains that way until at least 18 weeks of age, which means any large proteins are absorbed immediately into the bloodstream (which causes the sensitizing and allergies).

Breastfeeding is still crucial, because breastmilk contains IgA, a substance that coats the intestines and helps them to mature and close properly. It also protects against allergies by preventing properly digested proteins in mother's milk from getting out of the gut. If formula is used instead because baby is reacting to mother's milk, then the IgA is lost and baby's gut is sensitized automatically by whatever baby is eating (usually milk or soy based formulas).

Signs of Allergies

There are many different signs of allergies. It depends on the baby and the severity of the reaction. For example, when my gut health wasn't optimal, I noted a lot more of these signs. Now that my gut health is pretty good, I note only a couple (and then only if I've eaten something I really shouldn't have anyway).

• Eczema (yes, it is a sign of allergies!)
• Fussiness/crying/screaming
• Gas (especially if it causes baby a lot of discomfort)
• Spitting up (a tiny bit is normal, a lot or if it causes discomfort is not)
• Projectile vomiting
• Diarrhea
• Difficulty nursing (baby pulls back, chokes, screams, arches back)
• Red ring around anus
• Diaper rash
• Failure to gain weight/slow weight gain
• Red, itchy palms
• Night waking/disturbed sleep

You may notice some or all of these. With Daniel I noted spitting up, gas, fussiness, difficulty nursing, red ring around the anus (irritated red, not pale pink, which is normal), and later diaper rash. Eczema was a major sign for Bekah, along with night waking, diaper rash, and diarrhea. Every baby is different, but these signs clearly say "something's not right."

Determining the Culprit

Unfortunately, it's not always easy to figure out what's causing the problem, especially if it's multiple things. Dairy, soy, and wheat are the top culprits and should always be suspected first. Corn and nuts are also major issues. However, it can be any number of foods. I've heard of pomegranates (that was an issue for Daniel), bell peppers, and all kinds of other obscure foods being a major problem, so if none of the main suspects seem to be the cause, try other things.

Foods can get into your milk from almost immediately to 12 - 18 hours after ingesting it. I know that foods usually get into my milk 5 - 6 hours after ingestion (with Daniel this was true). It clears your system 18 - 24 hours later.

For this reason, it's helpful to keep a food diary. Write down what you've eaten and also what baby's reaction is, if any. After a few days or a week, patterns should emerge -- when you eat certain food(s), baby reacts poorly. Eliminate these foods and you should see changes.

It's important to note that while the foods can clear your system in about 24 hours, resulting in improvement in baby's reactions, if you've been eating the regularly they won't clear your system completely for up to 2 months. Therefore, if you note some improvement but not complete reversal of symptoms, continue with the elimination diet.

Elimination diets aren't fun, but they are necessary for your baby's health. These reactions are also a huge indicator that your gut health isn't right, and that you probably have food sensitivities too. It's best if you don't eat them, for your own health.

Helping Food Allergies

Are you or your baby just destined to suffer from these food allergies forever, now that it's started? No!

Fortunately, you can move past these allergies. I have done it with two babies and now have a third that doesn't have any "regular" allergies (just the minor reactions to food additives...which really has just driven home the point that these are not actually foods and we should not eat them!).

Here's the best way to handle it (in my experience):

1. Keep breastfeeding -- Your baby needs that IgA to help his/her gut mature properly. Formula will hurt his/her gut when it is already sensitized.
2. Eliminate the offending food(s) -- Stop consuming the foods that are causing the reactions in order to prevent further damage
3. Begin GAPS -- This is a special diet that eliminates grains and dairy and focuses heavily on meats, stock, probiotic foods, and fats to heal and seal the gut lining. This diet is how we achieved healing from allergies, and we still go back to it frequently.
4. Delay solids -- Your baby shouldn't have solids until his/her gut is sealed properly through breastfeeding while you eat according to GAPS. This should be around 9 - 10 months (assuming you discover allergies in the first few months, not later in baby's life). First foods should be stock, fats, meat, and probiotic foods.
5. Shore up your gut health with GAPS -- Stay on GAPS until your gut health is better in order to prevent problems with future babies!

Food allergies in infants aren't fun. And it's not easy to handle. But you can do it, and still help everybody be as healthy as possible!

Scientists find a mass of synthetic chemicals in every glass of milk

By Christina Luisa

Natural News

(Natural News) When you wake up and go to the kitchen to pour yourself a cold glass of milk, it seems you are filling your body with calcium, vitamins, and an abundance of goodness. That seemingly white beverage may look innocent, but the hidden ingredients packed into the liquid that is a popular staple in the American diet are anything but.

According to a recent study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, scientists have found through analysis that one single glass of milk can contain a delightful (or not) medley of up to 20 different kinds of painkillers, antibiotics and growth hormones (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021...). These medicinal residues, found in samples of cow, goat, and human breast milk, are from a variety of chemicals used to treat animal and human illness.

This research revealed that cow, goat, and human breast milk tested for traces of numerous anti-inflammatory drugs such as niflumic acid, mefenamic acid, flunixin, ibuprofen, diclofenac and ketoprofen -- all of which are commonly used painkillers for animals and humans.

Traces of other drugs, such as lipid regulators, anti-epileptics, beta-blockers, antibiotics and various hormones (such as ethinylestradiol and estrone) were found as well.

A total of 20 pharmacologically active substances were found in the various types of milk in the study. The highest quantities of drug residues and hormones were found in cow's milk. Researchers used an extremely sensitive testing method, called Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, in order to ensure the testing was successful and accurate.

According to an online article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...), the milk tested also contained the hormone 17-beta-estradiol, a form of the sex hormone oestrogen.

This hormone was detected at three millionths of a gram in every kilogram of milk, while the highest dose of niflumic acid was less than one millionth of a gram per kilogram of milk. The scientists running the test, led by Dr Evaristo Ballesteros from the University of Jaen in Spain, said their testing method could also be used to check the safety of other types of food.

The amount of these drugs found in milk may have be minute; however, the research results make it entirely too clear how prevalent man-made substances, drugs, and chemicals really are in our food chain.

Researchers believe that the growth-promoting hormones and drugs are all given to cattle and cows at some point, or are often present within contaminated cattle feed.

But wait, there's more. Suffice it to say, everything you know about cow's milk and dairy in general is most likely part of a dairy industry myth. In general, cow's milk is a tainted bodily fluid from diseased animals that contains a wide range of dangerous and disease-causing substances. Here are some further reasons to avoid it altogether.

It can cause and worsen cancer All cow's milk (both regular and "organic") has 59 active hormones, countless allergens, lots of fat (unless it is skim) and cholesterol. Most cow's milk also has perceptible quantities of herbicides, pesticides,dioxins up to 200 times the safe levels of dioxins, up to 53 powerful antibiotics, blood, pus, feces, bacteria and viruses (http://www.rense.com/general26/trut...). This milk can potentially have traces of anything the cow ate or was exposed to during its lifespan, including such things as residue from radioactive materials.

Of those 59 mentioned hormones, one is a powerful growth hormone called Insulin- like Growth Factor ONE (IGF-1). This hormone is essentially a "fuel cell" for any cancer. In fact, it has been proven that IGF-1 is the key factor in the growth and proliferation of every breast cancer; the medical world has clearly stated that IGF-1 is not only a key factor in the rapid growth and increase of prostate and colon cancers, but is suspect to promote and worsen ALL cancers, including those that are existing.

This is especially significant considering nearly 40% of women between the ages 40 and 50 have existing cancer in their breasts. The naturally-occurring hormone is identical in humans and cows, and every 12 ounce glass of milk doubles the amount of this hormone in your body. IGF-1 is linked not only to rising cancer rates, but the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

IGF-1 is a normal part of all milk -- and while newborns are supposed to grow quickly, what makes the 50% of obese American consumers(or any adult consumer in general) think they need substances that cause MORE growth? If the residual hormones in milk aren't enough to scare you away from milk, surely the amount of other drugs, man-made chemicals, and dioxins are.

According to the World Health Organization, approximately 90% of the dioxins entering the human body come from dairy products and meat. Considering dioxins are some of the most toxic chemicals known to science, and the EPA has published a report confirming they are cancer hazards to humans, should we really be purposely ingesting substances known to contain them?

It isn't a good source of calcium? Contrary to popular belief, commercially sold milk is not the best way to get calcium. According to (notmilk.com), American women have been consuming an average of 2 pounds of milk per day throughout the course of their lives, yet 30 million American women have osteoporosis. Ingesting dairy products and drinking milk does not prevent bone loss; in fact, bone loss is expedited by consuming an excess of protein, and milk has often been labeled "liquid meat."

After all, where do the cows get calcium for their big bones? You guessed it... from plants! The calcium they consume from plants has a large amount of magnesium, which is necessary for the body to absorb and actually use the calcium properly.

The calcium in cow's milk, and in dairy products in general, is basically useless because it has insufficient magnesium content. Those nations with the highest amount of milk and dairy consumption also have the highest rates of osteoporosis. Proof? How about a controlled study of 78,000 nurses over a period of 12 years? (http://www.notmilk.com/deb/030799.html) In this Harvard study, women that were consuming greater amounts of dairy foods had significantly increased risks of hip fractures, while there was no recorded increase in fracture risk observed for the same levels of calcium from nondairy sources.

The text of the anti-dairy advertising campaign from the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) specifically reads, "Don't count on milk to beat osteoporosis." The ad mentions the Harvard nurse study and how it proved drinking a few glasses of milk per day did not reduce fractures at all. PCRM's ad campaign is based upon two studies, one published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, and the other in the American Journal of Public Health. The campaign from PCRM refreshingly counteracts the infamous dairy industry"GOT MILK" ad nonsense.

Giving up dairy products, in other words, does not increase one's chances of suffering from a lack of calcium. What it does do is decrease the amount of synthetic chemicals, drugs, and harmful hormones being consumed. Good non-dairy sources of calcium include leafy green vegetables, orange and apple juice, beans, rice milk, tempeh, and calcium/magnesium supplements.Website for maintaining calcium levels through vegan sources: http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/calciu...

Sources used and further reading:

1. Feskanich, D., Willett W.C., Stampfer M. J., & Colditz G.A. Milk, dietary calcium, and bone fractures in women: a 12-year prospective study. American Journal for Publich Health, First published June 1997; 87: 992-997 Accessed online July 7,2011 at http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cg...

2. Cumming R.G., Klineberg R.J.Case-Control Study of Risk Factors for Hip Fractures in the Elderly. Am. J. Epidemiol. (1994) 139(5): 493-503 Accessed online July 7, 2011 at http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/conte...

3.http://www.notmilk.com/

4.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...

5.http://www.thestreet.com/story/1040...

6.http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021...

7.http://www.preventcancer.com/consum...

8.http://www.rense.com/general26/trut...

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033075_milk_chemical_contamination.html#ixzz1SxDEnKrD

Feds target Amish in bizarre sting operation

By WC Douglass MD

It's the roughest, toughest gang of outlaws you've ever seen -- a band of bearded renegades so dangerous that a federal agency needed help from TWO law enforcement departments during a recent raid. 

The Amish must be stopped! 

These buggy-driving menaces represent such a threat to the American Way of Life that the feds put one of them in the crosshairs of an 18-month sting operation. 

But this wasn't about weapons, drugs or counterfeit money -- it was about RAW MILK. 

This thriller begins with brave FDA agents putting their lives on the line by infiltrating another group of known radicals: Washington, D.C.-area families that enjoy farm-fresh milk and other organic goods. 

These families know that raw milk is superior in every way to Big Dairy's watered-down swill and that it can even cure everything from asthma to autism. But since it's illegal to buy raw milk in Maryland, where most of these families live, they were forced to look elsewhere. 

That's when they joined together to form a cooperative to buy a stake in Dan Allgyer's Pennsylvania farm. It's a way of skirting the law -- you're not "buying" the milk if you already own the farm. 

Little did they know there were traitors in their midst: Undercover FDA agents using assumed names joined the club and attended gatherings in members' homes... where they secretly gathered evidence to use against Allgyer. 

And when the Amish farmer ultimately delivered his contraband, the agents turned into Elliot Ness and the Untouchables, launching an armed predawn raid on his Pennsylvania farm with the help of U.S. marshals and state police. 

All that was missing was a team of Navy SEALS! 

Naturally, there's no real evidence against Allgyer. After a year and a half undercover, the feds can't point to a single sick customer or a single case of contaminated milk. 

The only supposed crime Allgyer committed was "selling" his milk across state lines -- but since the cooperative is technically an owner and not a customer, even that argument is thinner than pasteurized milk.

Radiation detected in milk, air and water - Is America safe?

By Mike Ludwig

Truthout

Radioactive material from the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan has fallen in rain on major cities across the United States, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agency has also detected radioactive materials in milk, air and drinking water. The EPA and other government agencies continue to insist that they expected to see some level of radiation on US soil after the Daiichi disaster, and the current radiation levels are not a cause of public health concern. Truthout has identified gaps in the government's data, however, and nuclear watchdogs are concerned that public officials are not telling Americans the whole story.

Consider Boise, Idaho, where the amount of radioactive iodine-131 in rainwater jumped from 242 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) on March 22 to 390 pCi/L on March 27, according to the EPA. Iodine-131 levels found in rainwater sampled from about a dozen other cities range from 8 to 125 pCi/L.

The Boise figures seem high when compared to the Maximum Containment Level (MCL) for drinking water, which the Safe Drinking Water Act sets at 3 pCi/L for iodine-131 in water consumed by people over many years. Fortunately for Boise, iodine-131 decays in about eight days, and the most recent tests on drinking water in Boise found iodine-131 levels at 0.2 pCi/L. But some questions remain unanswered.

"The rainwater appears to be contaminated, and that rainwater falls on rangelands and agricultural fields, but we're not getting any data on agricultural crops and little data on milk," said Dan Hirsch of the nuclear watchdog group Committee to Bridge the Gap.

Hirsch told Truthout that he is not sure if radiation is posing a threat to public health because the government is not doing enough testing, and agencies are putting "spin" on the data they do release.

Stand up to the monolith of corporate news - support real independent journalism by donating to Truthout here.

Radiation tests on milk have come up positive in several US cities, but Boise is not on the list of cities where milk is tested. Milk in Little Rock, Arkansas, had 8.9 pCi/L of iodine-131 on March 30. Milk in Phoenix, Arizona contained, in at 3.2 pCi/L that same week, and milk in Los Angeles, California, had a similar reading of 2.9 pCi/L. These results were posted about a week after the samples were taken.

The most startling numbers come from Hilo, Hawaii, which is much closer to Japan than mainland states. Milk sampled from Hilo on April 4 was contaminated with 18 pCi/L of iodine-131, 24 pCi/L of cesium-134 and 19 pCi/L of cesium-137.

These figures appear gloomy when compared with the drinking water MCL of 3 pCi/L for iodine-131, but the government agencies claim that the contamination is far below levels of public health concern. That's because there is no MCL for milk, according to Hirsch. Instead, government agencies rely on Derived Intervention Levels (DIL) set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The DIL for iodine-131 in food products like milk is set at 170 becquerels per kilogram, an amount that is 1,500 times higher than the drinking water MCL.

DILs provide agencies like the FDA with guidelines - not mandates - as to when the government should take action to keep food contaminated by radioactive material out of the hands of consumers. A DIL "does not define a safe or unsafe level of exposure, but instead a level at which protective measures would be recommended to ensure that no one receives a significant dose," according to the FDA web site.

"[DILs are] a guidance as to when an emergency action should taken to intervene, but these are in no way to be considered safe levels," Hirsch said.

Hirsch said that DILs are "very inflated" and meant for emergency situations like the detonation of a dirty bomb or a nuclear meltdown. DILs help officials with "triage" during an emergency.

Hirsch and other nuclear critics agree that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation, and even small doses can cause cancer, a position that is backed up by at 2005 report by the National Academy of Sciences.

Patty Lovera, the assistant director of watchdog group Food and Water Watch, said that government agencies need to do more testing for radiation in domestic products and food imported from Japan before making blanket statements dismissing the possibility of a threat to public health. She said there is a "very concerted effort to reassure people," and criticized public officials for making analogies between radiation found in food and water and radiation from x-rays and cat scans.

"It's like comparing apples to oranges," Lovera said.

Under normal circumstances, the FDA only inspects 2 percent of imported seafood and tests about 1 percent, said Lovera, who is calling on the FDA to be more specific about how it is ramping up efforts to inspect food imports from Japan. The FDA has already barred milk and vegetables from the region where the Daiichi plant is located, but Lovera said the FDA should follow in other country's footsteps and temporarily bar seafood imports from Japan as well.

Like Hirsch, Lovera wants government agencies to be more upfront about the possible risks of radiation, even at the levels reported by the EPA, so individuals of different ages and health statuses can make the right dietary choices.

"That sophisticated of a conversation isn't happening," Lovera said. "Instead, it's 'don't worry, don't worry we'll tell you when there's an emergency' ... but with an increased understanding of low-level exposure, there should be more information out there so individuals can make choices."

While Lovera is concerned that agencies like the FDA don't have the resources to provide enough information, Hirsch sees a potential conflict of interest. He is concerned that the US government may be downplaying the dangers of radiation from the Daiichi plant to avoid undermining support for new nuclear projects in the US. He pointed out that the Obama administration has affirmed its commitment to building more nuclear reactors in the US and has urged Congress to approve $54 billion in subsidized loans for new reactors.

"This is kind of a run-through for what would happen if a similar disaster occurred in the US," said Hirsch, who lectures on nuclear policy at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "It seems to me that the agencies are getting an F."

Nocton mega-dairy from the UK withdraws plans for factory dairy farm

Great news from the UK! I don't understand why people in the US are still willing to put up with this!

Take action!

By Care 2

There is good news from the UK.  Thanks in no small part to the dedicated animal and environmental groups, along with many individuals, the mega dairy application for Nocton has been withdrawn.  The proposed dairy factory farm in Lincolnshire would have been the first such endeavor in the UK.

Originally, the proposal called for 8,000 cows, but due to strong objections, a plan was resubmitted for close to 4,000.  Modeled after U.S. factory farm methods, Nocton Dairies would have been a precedent-setting operation for England. 

The Ecologist reported "in a statement, the farmers behind the Nocton proposal, David Barnes and Peter Willis, said they still hoped to see large-scale, US-style, dairy farming in the UK and challenged others to 'stand up to' opponents of the system. Another farmer, David Alvis, has recently been reported to be looking to set up a 2,000-3,000 cow unit in Cambridgeshire."

In the end, it was the environmental impact of tens of thousands of tons of waste products produced by the cows each year that was the main concern about giving approval.  The huge amount of waste runoff would seep into ground water and pollute the area.  Animal welfare concerns won this battle by default.

PETA, WSPA and VIVA.com had active campaigns running to prevent Nocton Dairy from becoming a reality.  The WSPA ‘Not in my Cuppa’ campaign was quite creative in drawing the public's attention to the issue.  The video below is one such example.

Thanks to the many Care2 members who took the time to get involved by writing, emailing, signing petitions and calling North Kesteven District Council.  Your voices have been heard!

Related Stories:

Urgent: Public Comments Needed to Stop Factory Dairy Farm in UK
Is Antibiotic Use on Factory Farms Making Us Sick?
Ohio Dairy Farmer Escapes Cruelty Charges

Read more: animal welfare, factory farming, success story, united kingdom, nocton, dairy farm, nocton mega dairy

GE Alfalfa

From the Centers for Food Safety

Tell Sec. of Agriculture Vilsack to Adopt a Moratorium on the Planting of GE Alfalfa.  USDA’s Environmental Impact Statement Does Not Justify Approval

In a precedent-setting final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the planting of Monsanto’s genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) acknowledges for the first time that GE contamination of organic and conventionally grown crops presents a huge problem in the U.S. Yet, the document falls woefully short of proving that GE alfalfa is safe for the environment or that it will afford all farmers their fair share of the US agricultural economy.  In fact, the EIS sorely lacks the type of rigorous scientific data and analysis that the public expects from the Agency to justify going forward with any type of deregulation of GE alfalfa. 

That is why we are calling on our supporters to urge USDA to adopt a moratorium on the planting of GE alfalfa.

As we all know, once released into the environment GE crops, pollen or seeds cannot be recalled.  This presents a serious problem for organic and conventional farmers whose livelihood and reputation depends upon the ability to grow non-GE crops. It also raises important concerns for consumers who want to eat foods grown without using GE technology.  CFS believes that the only option that will protect organic and conventional alfalfa growers and dairies that rely upon non-GE alfalfa hay to feed its livestock is for the USDA to deny any approval of GE alfalfa and to establish a moratorium.

The modified alfalfa seed at the heart of the dispute has been engineered to be resistant to Monsanto’s flagship herbicide, Roundup. Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and a key source of dairy hay forage. As the first perennial crop proposed to be genetically engineered, alfalfa is open-pollinated by bees, which can cross-pollinate at distances of several miles, spreading the patented, foreign DNA to conventional and organic crops. Such biological contamination threatens the livelihood of organic farmers and dairies, since U.S. Organic standards prohibit genetic engineering, and threaten conventional alfalfa exports, since most overseas governments and alfalfa importers reject GE-contaminated crops.

Tell U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack that the science doesn’t support the agency’s proposed measures to prevent GMO contamination.  The only way to fully protect farmers, consumers and the environment is to deny approval of GE alfalfa and adopt a moratorium.

You can sign the petition here.

7 foods that experts won't eat

1. Canned tomatoes

The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Unfortunately, acidity (a prominent characteristic of tomatoes) causes BPA to leach into your food. Studies show that the BPA in most people’s body exceeds the amount that suppresses sperm production or causes chromosomal damage to the eggs of animals. “You can get 50 mcg of BPA per liter out of a tomato can, and that’s a level that is going to impact people, particularly the young,” says vom Saal. “I won’t go near canned tomatoes.” Fredrick vom Saal, PhD, endocrinologist

2. Corn - fed beef

Cattle evolved to eat grass, not grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. More money for cattle farmers (and lower prices at the grocery store) means a lot less nutrition for us. A recent comprehensive study conducted by the USDA and researchers from Clemson University found that compared with corn-fed beef, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium; lower in inflammatory omega-6s; and lower in saturated fats that have been linked to heart disease. “We need to respect the fact that cows are herbivores, and that does not mean feeding them corn and chicken manure,” says Salatin. Joel Salatin, expert on sustainable farming

3. Microwave popcorn

Chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in the lining of the bag, are part of a class of compounds that may be linked to infertility in humans, according to a recent study from UCLA. In animal testing, the chemicals cause liver, testicular, and pancreatic cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize—and migrate into your popcorn. “They stay in your body for years and accumulate there,” says Naidenko, which is why researchers worry that levels in humans could approach the amounts causing cancers in laboratory animals. DuPont and other manufacturers have promised to phase out PFOA by 2015 under a voluntary EPA plan, but millions of bags of popcorn will be sold between now and then. Olga Naidenko, PhD, Environmental Working Group

4. Non-organic potatoes

Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes—the nation’s most popular vegetable—they’re treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they’re dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting. “Try this experiment: Buy a conventional potato in a store, and try to get it to sprout. It won’t,” says Moyer, who is also farm director of the Rodale Institute (also owned by Rodale Inc., the publisher of Prevention). “I’ve talked with potato growers who say point-blank they would never eat the potatoes they sell. They have separate plots where they grow potatoes for themselves without all the chemicals.” Jeffrey Moyer, National Organic Standards

5. Farmed salmon

Nature didn’t intend for salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result, farmed salmon is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT. According to Carpenter, the most contaminated fish come from Northern Europe, which can be found on American menus. “You can only safely eat one of these salmon dinners every 5 months without increasing your risk of cancer,” says Carpenter, whose 2004 fish contamination study got broad media attention. “It’s that bad.” Preliminary science has also linked DDT to diabetes and obesity, but some nutritionists believe the benefits of omega-3s outweigh the risks. There is also concern about the high level of antibiotics and pesticides used to treat these fish. When you eat farmed salmon, you get dosed with the same drugs and chemicals. David Carpenter MD

6. Milk produced with artificial hormones

Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk. In people, high levels of IGF-1 may contribute to breast, prostate, and colon cancers. “When the government approved rBGH, it was thought that IGF-1 from milk would be broken down in the human digestive tract,” says North. As it turns out, the casein in milk protects most of it, according to several independent studies. “There’s not 100% proof that this is increasing cancer in humans,” admits North. “However, it’s banned in most industrialized countries.” Nick North Campaign for Safe Food

7. Conventional apples

If fall fruits held a “most doused in pesticides contest,” apples would win. Why? They are individually grafted (descended from a single tree) so that each variety maintains its distinctive flavor. As such, apples don’t develop resistance to pests and are sprayed frequently. The industry maintains that these residues are not harmful. But Kastel counters that it’s just common sense to minimize exposure by avoiding the most doused produce, like apples. “Farm workers have higher rates of many cancers,” he says. And increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden of pesticides (from all sources) with Parkinson’s disease. Mark Kastel, Cornucopia Institute

On how to avoid these foods and for the full article, please click here.

Related articles
Top 10 food additives to avoid
More FDA authority won't improve food safety
Say no to methyl iodide
The truth about farmed salmon
Interview with Shiv Chopra
10 organic foods that are worth the money
Teenagers carry 30% more BPA in their bodies than the rest of the population

Free school milk: the white stuff might not be the right stuff

Debate over the free school milk program, arguing that cow's milk may not be as beneficial for our children, especially under fives or babies who were not breastfed long enough. The UK government will not abolish the program. Read the full article here.

One thing is for sure. The white stuff you drink every day-pasteurized and homogenized-even if it is organic, is lacking all the enzymes and beneficial bacteria you need to digest it properly . Without these, your milk basically becomes a dead food therefore I cannot see how it would help improve anybody's health.