In March, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) made headlineswhen it declaredthat glyphosate, one of the world’s most commonly used herbicides, “probably” causes cancer in humans.
But in October, the organization is expected to issue a report on a much bigger target: meat. And the industry is bracing for the worst.
“It’s our 12-alarm fire, because if they determine that red and processed meat causes cancer—and I think that they will—that moniker will stick around for years,” Betsy Booren, vice president for scientific affairs at the North American Meat Institute, said at a recent conference, trade publication Meatingplace reported. “It could take decades and billions of dollars to change that,” she added.
Eating too much red meat has been linked to health problems including shorter lifespans, heart disease, and various kinds of cancer. In April 2014, the IARC cited studieslinking red and processed meats to colorectal, esophageal, lung, and pancreatic cancer, and called determining the connection a “high priority.” Since then, the organization has been collecting information to make their final determination.
Booren indicated her group would fight the classification as it did with the US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s recent report that said healthier diets are lower in red and processed meats. That advice, which was supported by many health experts, caused an uproar from Big Meat.
The IARC classifies substances on a scale of 1 (“carcinogenic to humans”) to 4 (“probably not carcinogenic to humans”). Booren said a2B designation, or possibly carcinogenic to humans, would be “a win for our industry.” Glyphosate was classified as a 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans.
As explained in a video Booren presented, a 2B classification is usually the result of science showing that the substance “can cause cancer in animals but the jury’s out on humans.”…
Editor’s Note: Considering what a hot planet we are with all these devices, there’s a lot of money at stake in covering up any health dangers. There’s a much more vested interest in telling people these things are safe than telling them if they aren’t.
By Catherine J. Frompovich
Every pro-‘smart’ technology proponent – be it manufacturer, supplier, utility or Public Utility Commission – invariably likes to trot out ‘safety’ studies done 50 or more years ago on the then emerging radar technology that was considered ‘safe’. Why? Furthermore, what does that apparent ‘conspiracy’ say about keeping current and up to date on the very real science of how non-ionizing radiofrequencies (RFs) and electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) cause harm to humans – the brain, in particular – and especially, children’s brains and bodies?
Didn’t military studies in the 1950s and 1960s expose microwave radiation health hazards? You betcha!
Well, recently the citizens’ ad hoc committee PASMA put out a Press Release, which addresses that very issue: RF/EMF radiation. I have permission to cite it verbatim; it’s listed below. Certainly, the information imparted there should cause every parent to become concerned about those ‘smart’ technology devices and the harm they are causing their children, especially 24/7/365 “dirty electricity” from AMI Smart Meters for electricity, natural gas and water utilities.
A real and pressing concern should be about Wi-Fi in schools and the workplace, which increasingly is being implicated in migraine headaches and numerous other sorts of health anomalies. Young children are particularly vulnerable. I’ll let the PASMA Press Release speak for itself:
WHY ARE THE PA PUC AND PA UTILITY COMPANIES, INCLUDING THE PA STATE LEGISLATURE, EXPOSING PENNSYLVANIA’S CHILDREN TO POSSIBLE BRAIN CANCER?
Pennsylvania’s children are being subjected to excessive electromagnetic frequencies in cell phones, Wi-Fi, and other “smart” gadgets that function by using radiofrequencies.
Dr. Mary Redmayne, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, published the paper “International policy and advisory response regarding children’s exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF)” in the journal Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 2015; 1 DOI:10.3109/15368378.2015.1038832, in which she advises, “[U]sing and storing a device at least 20cm away from the body, and when using devices offline then to put them in flight mode, turn Wi-Fi off at night, and to avoid keeping devices in the bedroom.”
PASMA wants to advise parents, legislators, and utility companies that certain devises cannot be turned off—at night or any time. We are referring to the AMI Smart Meters, which constantly gather and transmit information using microwave technology 24/7/365, plus send “dirty electricity” into homes.
Dirty electricity is a form of electromagnetic pollution or non-ionizing radiation. Some refer to it as electromagnetic interference (EMI) or electrical “noise.” It’s a powerful, high frequency electrical energy that travels along the wiring inside homes and buildings where only standard 60-Hertz AC electricity should be. Dirty electricity is a common effect produced by AMI Smart Meters.
Children’s bodies, because of their size and quick growth patterns, are more vulnerable to RF and EMF radiation, the brain in particular. What moral, or supposedly legal, rights do the PA PUC, PA state legislature, PA utility companies, and PECO, an Exelon Company, in particular, have to mandate and harass consumers into accepting RF-EMF emitting AMI Smart Meters or cut off their electric power?
According to the U.S. EPA, exposing people to toxins and cancer-producing substances is considered criminal activity. Furthermore, the EPA, as published in The Indiana Gazette of October 4, 1990, knew about the cancer-causing ability of EMFs when that newspaper stated, “But the EPA has stopped short of the probable carcinogen conclusion, which could have drastic implications for regulation of the American utility industry and in the workplace. Louis Slesin, power-industry watchdog and the editor ofMicrowave News, published in his journal’s most recent issue a paragraph from a rough draft of the EPA study recommending that low-frequency electromagnetic fields be classified as probable human carcinogens.” TheIndiana Gazette article goes on to say, ‘The paragraph,’ Slesin said in a recent interview with The Morning Call, ‘has since been deleted from the report, which won’t be issued in official, final form until this month, according to the July 20 issue of TIME magazine.’” What did EPA know; did not want to admit; and why did the EPA delete “the paragraph” from the report?
However, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has declared electromagnetic fields a class 2b carcinogen, the same as lead, DDT, dioxins, PCBs, etc., based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use—the same RF/EMF technology Smart Meters use to surveil, transmit and receive information to and from homes retrofitted with those dangerous AMI meters…
Payment-processing giants like MasterCard and Visa insist that you and your financial data will be safer once you move to “smart” credit cards that contain a computer chip. And like it or not, credit card companies are forcing merchants to make the change.
After an Oct. 1, 2015, deadline created by major U.S. credit card issuers MasterCard, Visa, Discover and American Express, the liability for card-present fraud will shift to whichever party is the least EMV-compliant in a fraudulent transaction.
In other words credit card companies are FORCING merchants to make the change or they’ll have to pay for every fraudulent purchase!
The flow of science in this modern age is largely controlled by just six corporate publishing groups, which by calculated design have been gobbling up the journal market since at least the 1970s. And a new study out of Canada reveals that this mass consolidation of publishing power is, to a large extent, skewing what passes as scientific progress.
Researchers from the University of Montreal pored through the whole of scientific literature published between 1973 and 2013 and found that the publishing realm has changed dramatically during this time. Many smaller publishers have been absorbed into larger ones, for instance, and academic research groups have become increasingly beholden to the interests of these major publishers, which tend to favor large industries like pharmaceuticals and vaccines.
Much of the independence that was once cherished within the scientific community, in other words, has gone by the wayside as these major publishers have taken control and now dictate what types of content get published. The result is a publishing oligopoly in which scientists are muzzled by and overarching trend toward politically correct, and industry-favoring, “science.”
“Overall, the major publishers control more than half of the market of scientific papers both in the natural and medical sciences and in the social sciences and humanities,” said Professor Vincent Lariviere, lead author of the study from the University of Montreal’s School of Library and Information Science.
“Furthermore, these large commercial publishers have huge sales, with profit margins of nearly 40%. While it is true that publishers have historically played a vital role in the dissemination of scientific knowledge in the print era, it is questionable whether they are still necessary in today’s digital era.”
The following Natural News infographic illustrates the disturbing reach of this academic oligarchy:
Six major publishers control fields of chemistry, psychology and social sciences
The fields most controlled by this academic oligarchy include those dealing with chemistry, psychology, social sciences and the professional fields. On the flip side, biomedical research, physics, and the arts and humanities are influenced to a much lesser degree by these six corporate publishers, according to the study.
What this suggests is that, over time, certain disciplines have become more corrupted than others as they’ve been absorbed into the corporate publishing fold. Such content, though often skewed, is highly profitable for publishers which not only don’t have to pay for the articles they publish but also resell such content digitally at profit margins upwards of 40%…
Four years ago, former BBC governor Sir David Scholey, admitted that he had taken part in big-game safaris. He was photographed beside the blood-soaked corpse of a lion, and posing with the tusks of an elephant
Slaughter of Cecil the lion by an American tourist has sickened the world
But it’s part of much bigger crisis: the mass murder of endangered species
UK firms offer safaris with chance to shoot hippos, leopards and buffalo
Now an international agreement that outlaws big-game hunting is needed
“I don’t imagine that Cecil’s murderer will ever be forgotten. His dental practice is surely finished, and his reputation as a lion-killer will follow him for ever. In the eyes of millions, his actions are barely better than those of a paedophile”
The slaughter of Cecil the lion by an American tourist has sickened the world. But it is part of a much bigger crisis: the mass murder of endangered species, which I believe is akin to animal ethnic cleansing.
In their barbaric treatment of Africa’s lions, rhinos, elephants and other wonderful animals, some people are no better than terrorists.
Take, for example, the pathetic American dentist, Walter Palmer, who paid £32,000 for the twisted privilege of torturing and killing a magnificent lion in Zimbabwe. Now he is an international hate figure, and rightly so.
But despite the worldwide revulsion, I fear this shocking outrage will blow over in a few days and be forgotten. Before long, some other rich dentist, doctor, businessman or lawyer will go to Africa and kill another lion. Doubtless he will be careful to attract less attention.
To this country’s deep shame, British travel firms offer killer safaris with the chance to shoot hippos, crocodiles, leopards and buffalo — all endangered species. The callousness of these slaughter package holidays beggars belief.
For example, Adrian Sailor, a UK agent for Settlers Safaris, reportedly offers something called a ‘Lion Combo Special’ — a seven-day trip to South Africa with the goal of shooting a male lion and a lioness — for £14,000.
“Every country that aspires to call itself civilised should be compelled to protect endangered animals against poaching and slaughter by a certain breed of tourist — often European”
His website shows him posing beside the bloody corpses of baboons and zebras, as well as a picture of three men brandishing a rifle over the body of a lion.
Another British firm, Shavesgreen Safaris in Hampshire, touts for tourists with the slogan: ‘There’s only one priority — a grand, old, maned lion.’ It also runs the ‘full bag safari’, offering the chance to kill a lion, hippo, buffalo, leopard, elephant and crocodile. The price for this mass murder is £29,000.
Apologists for such horrific activity claim that hunting has something to do with conservation. That is patently untrue: hunters and poachers have virtually wiped out lions across Africa in the past 30 years. Hunting and destroying habitats has nothing at all to do with conservation and everything to do with arrogance, savagery and greed.
In the Eighties, the world population of lions was estimated to be 100,000. Today, there are perhaps 20,000. That’s an 80 per cent decrease in three decades.
At that rate of destruction, lions will be extinct in the wild within ten years.
Study the figures in more depth, and the picture is even bleaker. In the Forties, there were half-a-million lions; in the 19th century, more than a million.
We have now reached the stage where the precious population is so dangerously low that individual lions in the wild, such as Cecil, have names.
Some lion-killers cynically claim they are emulating a great African tradition of hunting — part of a larger picture where Man happily co-exists with wild animals. Admittedly, in a bygone era, the young men of Zulu and Masai tribes prided themselves on their ability to face the most magnificent creatures on the plains armed with nothing but a spear. But when the lion population numbered more than a million, culling an animal that was probably threatening their cattle did not harm the natural balance.
The killing of Cecil, on the other hand, is an ecological disaster in such a small population. It is not just that this lion had been living in a reserve, was collared and was being tracked by scientists as part of an important study to learn the habits of lions.
Cecil had recently fathered between four and six cubs. Tragically, as is the way with nature, they will inevitably be killed by whichever male takes over Cecil’s pride. The lionesses will try to protect the cubs, and they, too, could be injured.
The killing of this one animal, the alpha male, will have such serious repercussions that as many as a dozen more animals might die. All the while, there will be scant apologies from hunters. Some in the American gun lobby will arrogantly claim it is their right to travel the world shooting rare animals if they want to.
I am afraid that is the logic of the bully: I want to do it, I can afford to do it, and no one is going to stop me.
There’s only one thing to be done with a bully — stand up to him. We need an international agreement that outlaws big-game hunting.Every country that aspires to call itself civilised should be bound by such a law, and compelled to protect endangered animals against poaching and slaughter by a certain breed of tourist — often European.
Former King of Spain Juan Carlos provoked disgust when he was photographed beside the body of an elephant that he had shot in Botswana in 2012. And four years ago, a former BBC governor and director of the Bank of England, Sir David Scholey, admitted that he had taken part in big-game safaris. He was photographed beside the blood-soaked corpse of a lion, and posing with the tusks of an elephant.
Scholey, a Tory donor who made his fortune in merchant banking, attempted to defend his actions by suggesting it was fair sport: ‘All the animals I hunt are wild beasts. And I have felt threatened by them at times.’
Such an argument is beneath contempt. So is his claim that the killing is justified because it is not illegal: ‘I have always hunted within the legal arrangements of the country concerned.’
No wonder more than 350,000 people have signed a petition urging David Cameron to strip Scholey of his knighthood.
Making lion-killing illegal everywhere in Africa is a huge challenge, and I fear that such a law will never be implemented. Hunting brings colossal profits for corrupt government officials who circumvent conservation policies and secretly aid foreign hunters…
What a paradox that a creature so fantastically fanged as Cecil the lion (not pictured) should have been slaughtered by Walter Palmer (left), a middle-aged, balding, Midwestern American who applies his working hours to the preservation of teeth.
Poor Cecil the lion. To be hunted by a human was bad enough. To be hunted and shot by an American tourist made it somehow worse.
Then came the final indignity: we learned that Cecil, so magnificently maned, had been killed by a dentist. From Minnesota.
Romance was brought low by the mundane. Distinguished free will was extinguished by something sterile and cruel.
A suburban dentist! What a paradox that a creature so fantastically fanged as Cecil the lion should have been slaughtered by Walter Palmer, a middle-aged, balding, Midwestern American who applies his working hours to the preservation of teeth.
The outcry has gone global. Protesters (some in lion costumes, some holding placards saying ‘KILLER!’) have paraded outside Mr Palmer’s dental surgery on the outskirts of Minneapolis, clearly reflecting international disgust at big-game hunting.
But I wonder if they have also, in part, been fuelled by another worldwide phenomenon: our almost hypnotised fascination with — and horror of — dentists.
The dentist occupies a peculiar position in 21st-century culture. He (and in cartoons it is always, for some reason, a male dentist, though the profession has many women) is a stock representative of pain and cruelty.
And yet, dentists are an important part of healthcare. Dentists keep us strong and fit. They do sterling work in reducing our pain from tooth decay.
Why do we live in terror of them? Why do we regard them in so negative a light?
The high-pitched ‘wheeeee’ of a dental drill can make us rigid with terror. Just hearing that sound used to make my late grandmother moan and hold her jaw in agony. The smell of antiseptic mouthwash, the thought of those starchy white jackets, the scrape of a metallic probe on our gums: we shudder at the thought.
Any tale of a sadistic dentist has a strange draw on our imagination. We look to one another and say: ‘Told you so.’ When we heard that Cecil, the pride of Africa, had been mercilessly exterminated by some dentist, were we surprised? Or did we think: ‘Yep, that sounds all too believable.’
As the dear departed Pete Postlethwaite remarked in the opening scene of the sequel to Jurassic Park, where his character was leading a safari of alpha males on a dinosaur hunt: ‘I’ve been on too many safaris with rich dentists to listen to any more suicidal ideas.’
Dentists make natural villains. Film producers are, at present, making a small-screen version of the story of Colin Howell, the Northern Irish dentist (and Baptist preacher) who was in 1991 found to have murdered both his wife and the husband of his mistress. His preferred method of murder? Gassing.
Can we not already picture the film’s opening scene in a dental surgery and a white-coated figure murmuring, ‘You will feel no pain’?
Another dentist, Sohail Qureshi, was nicknamed ‘the driller killer’ after being arrested at Heathrow airport in 2008 on his way to joining the Taliban.
Four years ago there was a suspicious death in New Jersey when a woman fell to her death from a high window. The story would probably have attracted little attention were it not for the fact that the victim’s husband, Roger Desilets, was a dentist — an endodontist, no less.
The media descended. Dr Desilets has since been charged in connection with his wife’s death but he remains innocent until proven otherwise.
Dentists: we call them ‘pullers’ or ‘fang bandits’, and now, after Cecil the lion, we regard them even more bleakly.
Dentists wear masks, just as highwaymen once did. Some of them certainly extract a lot more than rotten molars. ‘You’ll be screaming even more when you see my bill,’ goes one old joke about American dentists. And, ‘Let me just sedate your wallet.’
Walter Palmer seems to have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars over recent years to shoot large wild animals. That’s a lot of fillings and root canal surgery.
What a way to earn a fortune: by stooping over a prostrate human being and fiddling with their incisors. Though we are frightened of dentists, it is hard to envy them their way of living. Imagine the half-chewed food they must encounter, the bad breath. No wonder they wear masks.
As they work, do their minds wander? Are they frustrated by the constant need to reassure their quivering prey? Or does it go to their heads and bring out their inner Nero?
Perhaps that is what drove Walter Palmer to his destructive obsession. There are photographs of him posing alongside some of his animal targets: a felled rhinoceros, a bison, an antelope…
Hundreds of British hunters are fuelling a grisly industry of trophy animal killing, it was revealed yesterday.
The so-called trophy hunters travel the world on shooting safaris, which can cost £30,000 per person, to hunt species including lions, leopards and cheetahs.
Outrage over the American dentist who paid to shoot Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe has thrown a spotlight on the legal trophy hunting industry in countries including South Africa, Tanzania and Zambia.
Several British firms offer the trips and advertise price lists of animals to kill, alongside macabre picture galleries of their grinning clients posing next to bloodied animal corpses.
British hunting enthusiast Adrian Sailor advertises trips to South Africa and Namibia offering hunting enthusiasts the chance to kill big game. And a £29,000 expedition offered by British firm Shavesgreen Safaris, run by hunting enthusiast Charly Green, is described as ‘the ultimate dangerous game safari’.
The company’s website says: ‘Lion, leopard, buffalo, elephant, hippo and crocodile are all on the priority list.’ The firm, based in Lyndhurst in Hampshire, also offers a 16-day lion hunt in Tanzania with the boast: ‘There’s only one priority – a grand, old, maned lion.’
Pictures on Mr Green’s Facebook page showed the 34-year-old posing with an array of dead animals, including a beaver in Sweden and horned ibex in Spain. Approached by the Daily Mail, he refused to speak about his firm, or say if he thought killing lions was acceptable.
And on the Safari Hunter website, Mr Sailor, 48, stresses that he runs the site as a hobby, not as a business, although he is listed as the UK agent for Settlers Safaris.
He says he offers impartial advice as a free service, adding: ‘I will only send clients to professional hunters that I have had the experience of hunting with so I know what is available and what to expect.
Big game hunters: Two men shake hands over the body of a lion. So-called trophy hunters travel the world on shooting safaris, which can cost £30,000 per person, to hunt species including lions, leopards and cheetahs
‘Hunting has been my passion for many years. Nobody until now is offering the complete service of organising the hunting, taxidermy and trophy shipment. Whatever type of hunting you require, trophy hunting, management or cull hunts or even the Big Five, I can offer.’
The Big Five refers to lions, elephants, leopards, buffalo and rhinos, prized as the ultimate targets for hunters. Another company, The Hunting Agency, offers ‘dangerous game hunting opportunities’ on its website including a £26,000 14-day bull elephant trip to Namibia.
Its 2014 price list for Namibia has ‘trophy fees’ starting at £65 for a jackal and rising to £3,450 for a leopard or £2,200 for a cheetah, although it stresses that a cheetah could only be killed ‘by chance’. Prices for South Africa start at £65 for a baboon, porcupine or warthog, rising to £2,350 for a giraffe…