GMO-Free is Fastest Growing Retail Brand Posted on March 12th, 2010
In a blog post on Nielsen.com1 earlier this month, Nielsen’s Tom Pirovano says that U.S. retailers are expanding their store brands and the latest, fastest-growing branding health claim is to label products “GMO-free.” This labeling, according to Nielsen’s numbers, is up by 67% in 2009 with a sales growth of $60.2 million in that sector.
In fact, healthy claims are tops in many categories of sales growth for store brands, including “Gluten free” and claims of adding or bolstering Omega acids.
Most of these store brands are large and are well-known chains, some known for healthy and whole foods and others more as being cookie-cutter boxes. Supermarkets have been certifying products as organic for in-store brands for some time, so the trend towards healthy claims and marketing is not new.
The rise of sentiment against genetically modified foods (GM or GMO) is growing, however, and market brands reflect that. Readers of NaturalNews are no simpletons when it comes to the dangers of GM foods.2
With genetically modified organisms and foods being linked to organ damage, crop failures, increased water usage, and worse, consumers are finally waking up to the dangers of these products.
Another hot growing trend amongst retail store brands is the claim of being high fructose corn syrup free, which gained 28% or $13 million in market share, according to the Nielsen numbers. This one may become a growing trend, and as Pirovano points out, many retailers are adopting a “wait-and-see attutide to determine if a claim has ‘legs’ or is merely the latest blip on the consumer trend screen.”
Further, thousands of organic and natural food products are now enrolled in the Non-GMO Project’s Product Verification Program (known as PVP). This is the nation’s first and largest system for scientific testing of product standards against genetic modification.3 This project includes some of the biggest retail names in the food industry and labels from the PVP will be appearing on retail packages this year.
As sentiment against the GMO seeds and products made from their crops grows, so too will the retail market backlash. Although government agencies like the Food and Drug Administration have refused to rule against GM foods, despite the evidence, the free market and consumer demand is turning the tide against them on its own.
As Shelly Roche of Bytestyle.tv says, “The great thing about this new report is that it shows how quickly the market responds when it sees a shift in consumer demand.”4
It’s becoming obvious that many health-conscious consumers in America are indeed voting with their forks.
Resources:
1 - U.S. Healthy Eating Trends Part 4: Store Brands Expand Healthy Offerings by Tom Pirovano, Director of Industry Insights, Nielsen Co.
2 - Feature NaturalNews Articles on GMOs and http://www.naturalnews.com/027931_G…
3 - Non-GMO Project
4 - ‘GMO-free’ is fastest-growing retailer brand claim by Shelly Roche, Bytestyle.tv
Consider a Few Things about Dr. Wakefield, the GMC and the Autism-Vaccine Link Posted on March 11th, 2010
The news has been full of headlines trumpeting the discrediting of Dr. Andrew Wakefield`s 1998 study on vaccines (specifically MMR, measles-mumps-rubella) and childhood autism. While the news outlets in the main stream wax poetic about their belief that this discredits all autism-vaccine links, they ignore several fundamental things about the study, Dr. Wakefield, and the General Medical Council (GMC) which gave him a guilty verdict.
First, Wakefield`s study was only five pages long1 and was a case study, not a double-blind test drawing conclusive results. It studied 12 children and made no claims, only hypotheses. Thousands of these kinds of reports and studies are published every year and generally are ignored, as they are usually merely springboards towards more scientific research. It should also be mentioned that Wakefield`s observational research in this study has been duplicated by 2 other research institutions, one in Japan and the other in the U.S.2
Dr. Wakefield has published 32 peer-reviewed papers since 1998 and none of those have been mentioned, retracted, or challenged. The 1998 study was, however, the beginnings of an instrumental line of inquiry that would, eventually, lead to a study which will be published inNeurotoxicology, the advance first-phase having published last year.3
In fact, Dr. Wakefield has never been against vaccination and has, instead, been a proponent of single antigen vaccines. In other words, Wakefield is hardly “anti-vaccine” and instead urges pediatricians and vaccine makers to use single-dose vaccines formulated for only one pathogen.
The findings of the GMC had nothing to do with his research or his methodology, but only with his failure to disclose financial links they saw as potentially conflicting and with his alleged treatment of test subjects. The panel went so far as to specifically state that their decision had nothing to do with a vaccine-MMR-autism link.4
The findings of the GMC hinged on the supposed treatment of the children in the study`s control group, all of whom were friends of the Wakefield family. During Dr. Kumar`s (GMC panel chair) reading of the findings in this regard, all five of those parents stood and interrupted at various intervals to call the panel liars and unethical miscreants.5
That same Dr. S Kumar, who chaired the Fitness to Practice Panel and read the guilty verdicts to Dr. Wakefield and others, is a shareholder in a well-known pharmaceutical company. His predecessor was outed after it was found that Professor Dennis McDevitt was a research fellow for the same pharmaceutical giant.
The entire trial began because a man named Brian Deer brought complaint against Dr. Wakefield, with the help of funding and assistance from Medico-Legal Investigations. MLI is a private inquiry company funded solely by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.
The suit began in 2007 and trudged on for two years. During that time, parents of the children in question attempted to bring their case to court, to force the GMC panel to allow them to testify, but the judge refused. That judge, Sir Nigel Davis, has a brother who was on the board of (again) the same big pharma company.
If you`re not seeing a pattern here, you aren`t paying attention.
Resources:
1 - Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and
pervasive developmental disorder in children by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, et al
2 - Detection and sequencing of measles virus from peripheral mononuclear cells from patients with inflammatory bowel disease and autism by H. Kawashima, T. Mori, et al
2a - Dysregulated innate immune responses in young children with autism spectrum disorders: their relationship to gastrointestinal symptoms and dietary intervention
by H. Jyonouchi, L. Geng, et al
3 - Infant Primate Study Links Vaccination with Autism by Aaron Turpen, NaturalNews.com
3a - Infant Hepatitis B Vaccine Triples Risk of Autism in Boys, Study Says by Aaron Turpen, NaturalNews.com
4 - Fitness to Practice Panel Hearing, January 28, 2010 General Medical Council
5 - Eye Witness Report from the UK GMC Wakefield, Walker-Smith, Murch Hearing by Martin Walker, Age of Autism
Coalition for Vaccine Safety Calls for Congressional Hearings Posted on March 11th, 2010
In a letter dated February 23 and addressed to the members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the Coalition for Vaccine Safety (CVS) calls for congressional hearings to investigate and review the role of the Health and Human Services (HHS) department and its constituent agencies and to evaluate their performance in ensuring vaccine safety.1
“Congress should review the claims of HHS and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that vaccines are safe with a jaundiced eye. The existing evidence on vaccine safety is grossly insufficient and fails to meet the requirements of public confidence.”
The CVS goes on to point out that the HHS has not complied with mandates from Congress in a 1986 law titled The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act. That law, now codified as 42 United States Code: 300aa-1 to 300aa-34, reduced the potential liability of vaccine makers from vaccine injury claims.2 This law created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).
As the CVS letter further points out, the requirements given the HHS under that law state that the agency must conduct testing and research to reduce vaccine-related injuries and that it has failed to do so. So far, no tests or studies which include both vaccinated and unvaccinated children have been done; little field surveillance and adverse reaction reporting is happening; and overall the HHS is ignoring their duty.
Further, the HHS has also ignored the spirit and intent of the Combating Autism Act of 2006 (now Public Law No. 109-416).3 The CVS calls on this provision due to the upcoming release of a finding from the Court of Federal Claims on its Omnibus Autism Proceeding. This involves test cases on the possible link between Thimerosal (a preservative containing mercury) and autism.
The letter then goes on to point out several examples of suppressed science, conflicts of interest in hearings and judgments, and more. These include several instances of prominent medical groups and doctors questioning the vaccination regimen and the lack of research into the causes of autism and its possible links to vaccination. Financial conflicts of interest between those charged with ruling on or researching autism-vaccine links are also well-documented.
This includes former CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding who is now president of a well-known vaccine maker4 and her statements on CNN in 2008 to the effect that her industry’s knowledge of negative health links and vaccines includes characteristics of autism.
The letter is hard-hitting, full of information, and was copied to the ranking members of the Senate Judiciary Committee as well.
Resources:
1 - Letter to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Coalition for Vaccine Safety
2 - National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act at the Louisiana State University Law Center’s Medical and Public Health Law Site
3 - Combating Autism Act, Wikipedia
4 - Former head of CDC lands lucrative job as president of Merck vaccine division by Mike Adams, NaturalNews
Vaccine Study Shows Higher Rates of Chest Infections Posted on March 7th, 2010
A study published in the January 2010 edition of the journal Pediatrics shows that childhood pneumococcal vaccination may be linked to an increase in serious pneumonia complications. Of course, reportage claims that the benefits of the vaccine, introduced in 2000, far outweigh the risk. Findings from the study’s researchers, based in the University of California, Davis, show only that the vaccine is not lowering rates of empyema-associated hospitalization, which have actually increased during the vaccine’s use.
Su-Ting Li, MD, MPH and Daniel J. Tancredit, PhD, authored the study and their conclusion says that empyema-associated hospitalization rates have actually increased, not by some small sum, but by a whopping 70% for the study’s window:
“Among children 18 years of age, the annual empyema-associated hospitalization rates increased almost 70% between 1997 and 2006, despite decreases in the bacterial pneumonia and invasive pneumococcal disease rates. Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine is not decreasing the incidence of empyema.”
This shows a probable unintended consequence of the pneumococcal vaccination regimen (now recommended by the CDC and mandated in several states) to be an increase of empyema. Empyema is a collection of pus in an anatomical cavity, usually in the lungs’ pleura, and is most often associated with serious pneumonia infections.
Pneumococcal disease is a type of pneumonia caused by a virus and the bacteria, pneumococcus, is actually naturally occurring in most people’s bodies. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends vaccinations (called the PCV7 series) in infants and children at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, and 12-15 months as well as increased dosage and series for several “at risk” categories.
The study looked at the Kids’ Inpatient Database (KID) to estimate the number of children (18 years or younger) who were associated with empyema in 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2006. This was correlated with Census data to get annual incidence rates per 100,000 children. These were then compared to see the rate of growth in empyema hospitalizations amongst children.
The result, with a 95% confidence interval, showed that rates of hospitalization for empyema went from 2.2 per 100,000 in 1997 (pre-vaccination) to 3.7 per 100,000 in 2006. That 70% increase was also accompanied by a 44% increase in pneumonia complications requiring intubation (chest tube insertion). All of this was followed by a 13% decrease in pneumonia infections.
So the study found some interesting correlations. Not only did pneumonia decrease (the intended use of the vaccine) by 13%, but it also gained strength, raising the number of people who had serious complications in their pneumonia infection by 70% and the number of people requiring severe medical intervention (intubation) to treat their infection by 44%.
Note that these numbers are not by number infected, but are by population as a whole. So despite the vaccine being credited with lowering pneumonia infections by a few percentage points, the study shows that by population, serious complications of pneumonia are on a dramatic rise.
Resources:
1 - Empyema Hospitalizations Increased in US Children Despite Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine, Pediatrics, Jan. 2010, Su-Tin T. Li, MD, MPH and Daniel J. Tancredi, PhD
2 - Pneumococcal Disease In-Short, Centers for Disease Control, Vaccines & Immunizations
3 - Empyema, Wikipedia
4 - Vaccine information on NaturalNews
FDA approval of medical devices based on complete science fraud Posted on March 6th, 2010
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the American Journal of Therapeutics (AJT) have both published papers criticizing the way in which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves medical devices. Citing a lack of legitimate safety and effectiveness studies, the papers allege that the FDA is approving medical devices without proper scientific evidence proving that they work and will not harm patients.
Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, pored over seven years worth of FDA public summaries concerning approved medical devices. Researchers from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston wrote the AJT piece, concluding that the FDA’s safety and effectiveness data for medical devices is inconsistent and unreliable. William Maisel, one of the researchers, indicated that the FDA needs to improve its clinical trial standards for medical devices.
When drugs are approved, they typically go through a series of studies prior to even being evaluated by the FDA. A medical device, however, can be approved based on the results of a single study which may or may not contain important specifics such as who participated in the study. Critics note that, since a medical device is usually a permanent addition to someone’s body, it deserves even more intense scrutiny than prescription drugs which can be discontinued if found to be harmful. This is especially true with heart devices that are necessary in order to keep a person alive.
Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, acting director of the FDA’s device division and co-author of one of the studies, conceded that the FDA’s process for evaluating medical devices is inadequate. He explained that the FDA is working on creating stronger standards for evaluation and approval but that device manufacturers need to work more closely with them to establish study goals.
Janet Trunzo, an executive vice president of AdvaMed, an advocacy group for the medical device industry, defended the FDA’s current approach to approving medical devices. She expressed that device manufacturers submit extensive data to the FDA who spends 1,200 hours reviewing it all prior to approving a device.
Many approved medical devices have been recalled over the years for safety reasons. The FDA maintains a list of the most serious medical device recalls for which the products in question may cause “serious health problems or death.” There are over 30 devices on the list from 2009 alone. Since 2004, there have been 137 medical devices recalled by the FDA.
