Playing online casino Malaysia through Alibaba33 online casino Malaysia can be a fun and rewarding experience for those who enjoy playing games for fun. trusted online casino malaysia alibaba33Bet on your favourite slots, live, sporting events and win big! If you enjoy sports, slots like Mega888 ewallet Alibaba33 online casino Malaysia has something for you.

Viagra Malaysia treat erectile dysfunction with the original ED treatment that has helped men feel confident in bed for decades. We’ll connect you with a licensed viagra malaysia healthcare provider to evaluate if our prescription ED treatments could be right for you, including super-affordable generic Viagra viagramalaysiaofficial Viagra is an oral ED medication that works by suppressing an enzyme in the body called PDE5.

Category: No SM - Organic Lifestyle Magazine Category: No SM - Organic Lifestyle Magazine

EPA Is Allowing Use of Unapproved Pesticides – New Study

A report released by the Center for Biological Diversity reveals that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows the use of unapproved pesticides in the case of an emergency. The term emergency is defined in the dictionary as an unforeseen combination of circumstances. Looking at the instances of emergency approval from the EPA though, it’s clear the agency does not see it the same way. This loophole allows farmers to use deliberately unapproved or untested pesticides often without a public review or comment process, deliberating bypassing environmental and safety concerns.

It’s disgusting to see the EPA’s broken pesticide program bending over backward to appease the pesticide industry. These exemptions put people and wildlife at tremendous risk because they allow poisons to be applied in ways that would otherwise be illegal.” – Stephanie Parent, a senior attorney in the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health program

The report particularly highlights sulfoxaflor, a pesticide that was banned for killing bees while still being approved for 78 emergency approvals over the past six years and affecting more than 17.5 million acres of farmland. This pesticide had actually been approved for spraying on cotton, but that approval was canceled by a judge in 2015. That reversal didn’t stop sulfoxaflor from being sprayed on cotton and bee-favorite sorghum through the emergency approval program. The EPA has yet to examine the effect this program has had on pollinators, though that isn’t anything we didn’t know.

One of the conditions for the approval of an emergency pesticide petition is “loss of pesticide,” wither through insects developing resistance or regulatory agencies canceling the pesticide. This is also known as the EPA doing its job. Yet the agency is more than willing to undermine its previous decisions and credibility. When will we be left with the bill for these shortcuts…or has it already arrived.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:



Nestle Has Been Extracting Millions of Gallons of Water Without Proper Permits, Says California

Nestle, the company whose Chairman has famously stated that water is not a human right, has been extracting an average of 62.6 million gallons of water a year from the San Bernardino National Forest without proper permits, according to the California State Water Board. This extraction has occurred from 1947 to 2015 for the company’s Arrowhead bottled water. The two-year investigation came after complaints concerning Nestle’s diversions were registered during California’s recent drought, and regulators have found that the company was taking water in excess of the roughly 8.5 million gallons of water it has a legal permit for. Victor Vasquez, a senior water resource control engineer in the board’s water rights division, says that

…current operations do not appear to be supported by rights to the diversion or use of water exceeding 26 acre-feet…Any diversions in excess of that amount may be unauthorized,” adding that the company “must limit its appropriative diversion and use of water to 26 (acre-feet per year) unless it has evidence of valid water rights to water within the permitting authority of the State Water Board and/or evidence documenting the extent of additional water claimed to be percolating groundwater.”

Related: Inexpensive, Easy Detox – The One Gallon Challenge

Who Owns the Water?

Nestle traces its claim to the water in Strawberry Canyon to a 150-year-old claim by David Noble Smith, whose property later became the Arrowhead Springs Hotel. The State Water Board has recognized that claim to the spring water, though they want statements referring to unauthorized diversions within 30 days. They’re also giving the company 60 days to submit a compliance plan and an additional 90 days for an investigation and monitoring plan.

Related: What’s the Best Water for Detoxifying and For Drinking?

In their thirst to claim the bottled water market, Nestle has encountered pushback from environmental groups. This is not the company’s only bottled water brand, and the North America division of the Nestle Water company had 4.5 billion dollars in sales last year. It’s clear why Nestle Chariman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe doesn’t water guaranteed public access to water – it cuts into his profits.

Sources:



Are You Ready To Pay A Tax For Meat?

Governments are brainstorming for ways to combat the devastating environmental effects of factory farming, and several countries in Europe are calling for a tax on meat. No other industry involves the most pressing environmental and health issues of today, like GMOs, increased greenhouse gases, the destruction of natural habitats, herbicides, pesticides, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, quite like factory farming. Even worse, the meat and the corn and soy that feed them are on the receiving end of a massive amount government subsidies. Our government pays nearly 38 billion dollars a year to hasten the death of our eco-system and ourselves.

Yet meat is still powerfully entrenched in cultures worldwide, and the likelihood of a completely vegan or even vegetarian world is not high. 84% of vegetarians and 70% of vegans return to eating meat at some point in their lives. Our current carnivorous habits are not sustainable. Is a meat tax the way to fix it?

Recommended: Detox Cheap and Easy Without Fasting – Recipes Included

Progressive Europe

Denmark

The Danish Ethics Council started with a call for a tax on beef. That measure was passed by the council and is now scheduled for government consideration. While beef causes 10 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions, more than chicken and pork, the council has plans to extend the proposed tax to other red meats.

The United Kingdom

Several studies in the United Kingdom have resulted in a national conversation likely to result in meat taxes within the next 10 years. Analysis from Glasglow University and Chatham House, an international thinktank, indicate that public would see government intervention in this issue as a positive. According to Laura Wellesley from Chatham House, lead author of the research,

Governments are ignoring what should be a hugely appealing, win-win policy…The idea that interventions like this are too politically sensitive and too difficult to implement is unjustified. Our focus groups show people expect governments to lead action on issues that are for the global good. Our research indicates any backlash to unpopular policies would likely be short-lived as long as the rationale for action was strong.”

The survey analysis also found that many were surprised to learn of government subsidies for meat production, particularly in the large amounts given by the U.S. government.

Recommended: Start Eating Like That and Start Eating Like This – Your Guide to Homeostasis Through Diet

Germany

Germany already has a tax of 7 percent on animal products. The German federal environment agency has expressed a desire to raise that number to 19 percent, in order to keep with the Paris climate accords. Consumers would be the ones to pay this fine, although the agency has suggested that the estimated 5.2 billion euro tax revenue would lower consumption taxes on other food items.

My Opinion: We Pay to Produce It, Now We Pay to Eat It…?

America is much more attached to its meat products than Europe. The average American eats 200 pounds of meat a year, and for that American to be eating healthy (as it pertains to cancer and heart disease) levels of meat, those 200 pounds need to be reduced by two-thirds. But would Americans be so gung-ho about meat if they knew they’re actually paying an extra 8 dollars in hidden costs (healthcare, subsidies, and environmental degradation) for each Big Mac?

Here’s an idea…rather than tax consumers and charge them twice, slowly pull subsidies away from corporations running businesses contributing to climate change. This likely won’t happen, as the U.S. government cares about businesses, not people. Maybe if businesses weren’t so short-sighted, they would realize that people with more money buy more products.

In our current iteration, a meat tax in the United States is more likely to leave poor people without the funds or the knowledge for proper nutrition. Replacing everything meat with a version of tofurky isn’t sustainable or healthy either. In our school systems, we need real health and real food education that includes gardening.

On the other hand, if the tax happens, and it does promote awareness and reduced meat consumption, we’re not going to be too angry.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:



Trump’s EPA Says Glyphosate Not Carcinogenic To People

The Environmental Protection Agency released a draft assessment report this week that concludes glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, contradicting findings from both the World Health Organization and the State of California. The EPA is not the only organization to oppose the link between glyphosate and cancer, agricultural giant Monsanto being the most vocal critic of the WHO’s findings. The president of the National Association of Wheat Growers, Gordon Stoner, was pleased the EPA panel “confirms exactly what we’re saying: that agencies across the world say glyphosate is safe and the IARC report is a flawed analysis…”

Related: Dicamba – The Herbicide Monsanto is Promoting to Replace Roundup’s Glyphosate 

The wheat industry is particularly invested in this assessment, as they are among the farm groups who have joined with Monsanto to sue the State of California. As a part of its Proposition 65 initiative, California will be labeling all glyphosate products as cancer-causing by July of 2018. The lawsuit is an attempt to halt a measure guaranteed to negatively impact several industries like farming and gardening.

Business as Usual

If you’re a group currently suing a government agency claiming that your product does not cause cancer, it must be a relief to hear another government agency conclude that it probably doesn’t. For Monsanto, there wasn’t really a question. Since the release of glyphosate in 1974, upper-level management at the EPA has ignored or reversed studies that found issues with the herbicide. Monsanto emails recently released in regards to a different court case confirm that EPA employee Jess Rowland deliberately squashed an investigation into glyphosate around the same time that the WHO released its findings.

Related: Monsanto’s Glyphosate, Fatty Liver Disease Link Proven – Published, Peer-reviewed, Scrutinized Study

Monsanto is currently in the middle of a merger with German company Bayer AG, which will give them an unprecedented amount of control over the food supply. But they don’t even really need it. The necessary United States government agencies have been trained to put Monsanto first, even to the point of doing the company’s dirty work for them. Rather than issuing press releases with new studies or data reviews concerning glyphosate, the EPA has only now begun monitoring glyphosate in food. The USDA and the CDC don’t even bother. The new “findings” from the EPA are unlikely to change that anytime soon.

Related Reading:
Sources:



MMR Vaccine Causes Seizures in 5,700 U.S. Children Annually, Says Study

This was the largest statistical safety study ever to measure the association between MMR vaccination and febrile seizures. The study finds that that seizures from the MMR vaccine occur in about 1 in 640 children up to two weeks following MMR vaccination. More than half a million children were evaluated from a Danish population, both vaccinated and unvaccinated. Applying the same statistical risk of seizures to 3.64 million MMR vaccinated children in America results in about 5,700 annual MMR vaccine-caused seizures.

To make accurate and ethical public health decisions, the risks of a vaccine must be compared to the risks of the disease one is trying to prevent,” said Dr. Shira Miller, PIC president and founder.

Physicians for Informed Consent is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization dedicated to safeguarding informed consent with vaccination. See the press release below the video.

Related: How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children

Full Press Release: Physicians for Informed Consent Finds MMR Vaccine Causes Seizures in 5,700 U.S. Children Annually

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 20, 2017
Contact: pr@picphysicians.org

Los Angeles, Calif. — The California-based nonprofit organization, Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), recently reported in The BMJ that every year about 5,700 U.S. children suffer seizures from the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

This finding is derived from results of the most statistically powered safety study ever to measure the association between MMR vaccination and febrile seizures. More than half a million children were evaluated, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, from a Danish population that is relied upon globally to examine vaccine safety. The results showed that seizures from the MMR vaccine occur in about 1 in 640 children up to two weeks following MMR vaccination. Applying this risk of seizures to the 3.64 million U.S. children vaccinated with a first dose of MMR every year results in about 5,700 annual MMR-vaccine seizures.

“To make accurate and ethical public health decisions, the risks of a vaccine must be compared to the risks of the disease one is trying to prevent,” said Dr. Shira Miller, PIC president and founder. “When considering the MMR vaccine to prevent measles, the risks of the MMR vaccine need to be compared to the risks of measles.”

There is a five-fold higher risk of seizures from the MMR vaccine than seizures from measles, and a significant portion of MMR-vaccine seizures cause permanent harm. For example, 5% of febrile seizures result in epilepsy, a chronic brain disorder that leads to recurring seizures. Annually, about 300 MMR-vaccine seizures (5% of 5,700) will lead to epilepsy.

Furthermore, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), designed to be a warning system for identifying vaccine side effects, receives only about 90 annual reports of MMR-vaccine seizures following the first dose—only 1.6% of the 5,700 MMR-vaccine seizures that actually occur. Thus, other serious vaccine adverse events from MMR, including permanent neurological harm and death, may similarly be underreported.

“In the United States, measles is generally a benign, short-term viral infection; 99.99% of measles cases fully recover,” said Dr. Miller. “As it has not been proven that the MMR vaccine is safer than measles, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that mandatory measles mass vaccination results in a net public health benefit in the United States.”

Physicians for Informed Consent is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization dedicated to safeguarding informed consent in vaccination. To learn more about vaccine risks vs. disease risks, read PIC’s Letter to the Editor in The BMJ, and PIC’s Measles Disease Information Statement (DIS) and Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS) at physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles.

Recommended Reading:

CLICK HERE to view this press release on PRWeb.
CLICK HERE to view more PIC news.




EPA Relies on Industry Studies to Give Glyphosate New Green Light

Glyphosate is tthe most widely used pesticide in the world, and is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup. On the 18th of December the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a controversial analysis that relies heavily on industry studies to conclude that glyphosate poses no real risks to humans. The EPA  ignored the agency’s own guidelines for assessing cancer risks. The report also contradicts the 2015 World Health Organization analysis showing glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.

Related: Glyphosate Drenched Crops

The only way the EPA could conclude that glyphosate poses no significant risks to human health was to analyze industry studies and ignore its own guidelines when estimating cancer risk. The EPA’s biased assessment falls short of the most basic standards of independent research and fails to give Americans an accurate picture of the risks posed by glyphosate use.” – Nathan Donley, senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Related: Monsanto’s Glyphosate, Fatty Liver Disease Link Proven – Published, Peer-reviewed, Scrutinized Study

A federal advisory panel of independent scientists unanimously found earlier this year that in assessing glyphosate the pesticides office at the EPA failed to follow its own guidelines for determining whether a chemical can cause cancer. In the final draft released today, the EPA stated that the guidelines “… are intended as a guidance only …” and do not necessarily have to be followed.

Related: Dicamba – The Herbicide Monsanto is Promoting to Replace Roundup’s Glyphosate

Source:



GM crops will continue to be banned in Britain after Brexit, says Michael Gove

Michael Gove, Britain’s environment secretary, indicates that food made from genetically modified organisms will continue to be banned in the United Kingdom after Britain leaves the European Union. The US is expected to push for more GM-based foods to be sold in Europe.

The U.S. is putting Britian under intense political pressure drop the ban on GM foods after Brexit. In twenty years European Union scientists have deemed 40 GMO crops safe; but only a GM version of maize is grown, (grown in Spain for animal feed).

Mr Gove was asked by The Telegraph if GM food is more likely to be sold in the UK after Brexit, and if he would eat “chlorine-washed chicken,” which the US wants to export to the UK. He replied: “No and yes,” but then hastily, unsuccessfully, he attempted to cover for his admission, saying “but probably in whichever order you prefer”.

Earlier this month the US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross (Trump appointee) said that food regulations are among several “landmines” that may impede negotiations with the new trade deal. He said complying with EU food standards on GMOs and chlorine-washed chicken is problematic with trade negotiations. Mr Ross said that restrictions imposed by the EU were “really not science-based”.

We’re huge trading partners with each other and our economies are in many ways more similar to each other than either of us is to most of Europe.”

Recommended:
Sources: