HR 2749: “Food Safety” Bill Has Martial Law Provisions

July 5, 2009
Food Freedom
July 5, 2009

HR 2749 is a strange bill in many ways.  While the other “food safety” bills have been around since winter, allowing for much public discussion on the internet, HR 2749 has only suddenly appeared.  It is a mutant conglomeration of the worst of the other bills, with the addition of one very original part – martial law.

When it was a draft, it was Waxman’s bill.  But once given a number, it became Dingel’s who already had a “food safety” bill, HR 759.  So Waxman got none and Dingel got two.  (Was this because Waxman, being Jewish, was a hideous choice to introduce a bill with Codex in it – designed by the Nazi pharmaceutical companies that funded Hitler, provided the gas for the gas chambers, experimented on prisoners with vaccines – and is expected to kill millions?)

* HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.”

[This – “that has been used to transport or hold such food” – would mean all cars that have ever brought groceries home or any pickup someone has eaten take-out in, so this means ALL TRANSPORTATION can be shut down under this.  This is using food as a cover for martial law.]

Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination.  The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area.

[This is also a means of total control over the population under the cover of food, and at any time.] See this DailyKos entry.

The bill is unusual, too, because slow as it was to appear. The little bugger of bill has made up for it since.  It got a number on June 10, went to committee on June 17, passed instantly, and is headed for a vote on the floor of the House.

The first Patriot Act was passed using fear of terrorism. This Patriot Act is more coy, hiding under a cloak of “food safety” and but also using fear – fear of food contamination.  Evidently, Americans are supposed to be so frightened by the slightest possibility of a terrorist or of E-coli, they would trade away all their precious, hard fought freedoms for the promise of safety.  Or at least, that is what the trade-off has become.  “Terrorism” and “contamination” are great bugaboos used to open doors to an end to the US Constitution.  That is exactly what we are left with after those who wrote HR 2749 are done.

Who did write these bills?  It seems Monsanto had not only a hand, but a “defining” influence. http://farmwars.info/?p=594

This redefining of reality is what seems to be underlying all the loss of freedom.  Normal and free are disappearing into the maw of corporate definitions of reality. See this Yup Farming piece.

So, we begin with contaminated food from filthy corporate processors and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).  And what do we end up with after that reality is ground up by corporate legal hands?  Changes in the definition of risk so that natural things are treated as dangerous and toxic things are untouched, such that:

• Healthy, normal farms are taken over by government as though they were run by criminals and contaminated corporate slaughterhouses are untouched;
• The necessary freedom of individuals to live and grow food and be left alone are somehow suddenly destroyed, though they were never the source of any food contamination issue; and such that
• The profit and control and power of corporations which were absolutely the source of the increasingly terrible food, is somehow suddenly vastly increased.

Thanks to corporate control over reality, our wanting to clean up corporate processors and feedlots and CAFOS and end up with farmers’ markets and local farms and organic food has become the industrialization and potential destruction of every healthy part of the food system and the triumph of the most contaminated and toxic part.  And in the non-bargain, we lost all freedoms and they took all control.  And “all” is not a hyperbole here, for one need only look at another provision of HR 2749 to feel how insane, how distant from all we ever wanted.

* HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested.  It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers.

[What is missing in pointing out this astounding control, is that it opens the door to CODEX and WTO “good farming practices” will include the elimination of organic farming by eliminating manure, mandating GMO animal feed, imposing animal drugs, and ordering applications of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides.  Farmers, thus, will be locked not only into the industrialization of once normal and organic farms but into the forced purchase of industry’s products.  They will be slaves on the land, doing the work they are ordered to do – against their own best wisdom – and paying out to industry against their will.  There will be no way to be frugal, to grow one’s own grain to feed the animals, to raise healthy animals without GMO grains or drugs, to work with nature at all.  Grassfed cattle and poultry and hogs will be finished.  So, it needs to be made clear where control will take us.  And weren’t these the “rumors on the internet” that were dismissed but are clearly the case?]  See this DailyKos entry.

When we wanted not to get E-coli in processed meat, did we intend to put our farmers into corporate servitude?  Did we plan to have our own lives straight-jacketed by a million new controls over our own gardens, our own desire to grow food, our own plans to start small businesses, our own dreams to have a small piece of land and farm ourselves?  Who has the audacity to take our needs and grotesquely bastardize them in these ways, while giving the destruction and totalitarian control the sham name of “food safety”?

We wanted good food.  We never wanted to trap our farmers into an industrial prison on their own land, afraid moment to moment of not fulfilling some monstrous set of instructions that never end – rules the farmers loathe, rules that have not only nothing to do with real farming but which are antithetical to it.  Why have we ended up with HR 2749, an intense corporate nightmare around the most central and necessary aspects of a free country and of free human beings – farming and food?

American farming needs to be relieved of the burdens it has been under, not finished off by its corporate competition.  It needs freedom to flourish again.  Obviously – and Congress people who would think to vote for such absurdities, take note – the imposition of surveillance, monitoring, warrantless entry, taking of all records, licensing, fees, Codex and NAIS, in addition to massive penalties and prison terms (all without judicial review over even appropriateness and validity), are not how one thanks American farmers for holding together the only working part of our food system.  See Literal Enslavement by Linn Cohen-Cole.

HR 2749 is the most vicious and insane bill one could imagine.  Who treats our farmers in this way?  Who believes that such police measures can provide for the rebirth of farming and the return of healthy food?  Who wrote this bill that trashes the freedom of all our lives?  HR 2749 was not what we ordered and it should be sent back the bowels of hell it came from.

HR 2749 is both insane and cruel.  And the deceptiveness of hiding a Patriot Act in it and the brutal rush to slip it through Congress are ANTI-democratic.

Go here to tell Congress, “No.” http://www.ftcldf.org/petitions/pnum993.php

Advertisements

FDA Threatens to Seize All Natural Products that Dare to Mention H1N1 Swine Flu

June 19, 2009

Mike Adams
Natural News
June 18, 2009

In an effort to censor any online text that might inform consumers of the ability of natural products to protect consumers from H1N1 influenza A, the FDA is now sending out a round of warning letters, threatening to “take enforcement action… such as seizure or injunction for violations of the FFDC Act without further notice.”

“Firms that fail to take correction action,” the FDA warns, “may also be referred to the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations for possible criminal prosecution for violations of the FFDC Act and other federal laws.”

The message is crystal clear: No product may be described as protecting against or preventing H1N1 infections unless it is approved by the FDA. And which products has the FDA approved? Tamiflu (the anti-viral drug that most people will never have access to), and soon the new H1N1 vaccine that’s being manufactured at a cost of one billion dollars (paid to Big Pharma by the taxpayers). This vaccine, of course, will be utterly useless because H1N1 will undoubtedly mutate between now and the time the vaccine is ready, rendering the vaccine useless.

In other words, according to the tyrants at the FDA, the only products that may be marketed alongside the term “H1N1″ are those products that either don’t work or aren’t available to most people. Anything that really works to prevent influenza infections — such as natural anti-virals, medicinal herbs, etc. — is banned from even mentioning H1N1 without the threat of being criminally prosecuted.

Note: I reveal the five most powerful natural anti-viral remedies in a free report you can read here: http://www.naturalnews.com/RR-FiveB…

Such are the operations of our U.S. Food and Drug Administration — a criminal organization that’s working hard to do what every criminal organization does: Eliminate the competition! As the defender of Big Pharma, the FDA is also the destroyer of knowledge that seeks to remove educational statements from the internet. Truth has nothing to do with it — it is verifiably true that anti-viral herbs, probiotics and other natural products help protect consumers from influenza — but the FDA cannot allow such statements to remain online for the simple fact that people might become informed. And that, it seems, would be a dangerous precedent.

If people were informed about the healing and protective powers of herbs, they would no longer remain enslaved by the medical establishment. Profits would be lost. Power would evaporate. This is why people can never be allowed to attain any real knowledge about herbs, superfoods or nutritional supplements. And the FDA will threaten people with imprisonment just to make sure they don’t dare publish knowledge that the FDA does not want the people to see.

Targeted by the FDA

Who is being attacked and threatened by the FDA? Lots of companies offering highly-effective natural remedies. You can see a list of some of the companies being targeted right here: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scrip…


FDA Approval of Antipsychotics for Children Mirrors Bayer, AMA Approvals of Heroin as Cough Medicine for Children

June 11, 2009

Mike Adams
Natural News
June 11, 2009

Today an FDA advisory panel approved the prescribing of powerful mind-altering chemicals for children. Seroquel, Zyprexa and Goedon have now been approved by the advisory panel to be prescribed to children as young as 10 years old to treat a fictitious disease invented by psychiatrists and given the name “bipolar disorder.” (There is no such thing as a bipolar disorder disease. It is merely a name assigned to children demonstrating the predictable side effects of correctable dietary imbalances.)

In light of this disturbing decision, it is instructive to remember the history of pharmaceutical medicine and children. One hundred and ten years ago, Bayer marketed heroin to children as a non-addictive alternative to morphine. Did I say “non-addictive?” Yes, it’s right from the company’s own marketing materials. It just goes to show you that drug companies have been lying to the public (and poisoning the children) for well over one hundred years.

Much like the FDA’s present-day endorsement of antipsychotic drugs for children, the American Medical Association endorsed Bayer Heroin for kids, touting its ability to ease coughs. Heroin definitely eases coughs. And so does smoking meth! In offering this endorsement, the AMA apparently borrowed some of the FDA’s screwy logic, which claims “The benefits outweigh the risks.”

This means, of course, that the benefits to the drug companies outweigh the risks to the children!

During all this, of course, the AMA utterly failed to inform parents that heroin was a highly addictive narcotic drug. So parents were dosing their babies with heroin — all with the full approval of the American Medical Association!

Today, the FDA spearheads the promotion of drugs to children, doing its best to promote toxic synthetic chemicals that artificially alter brain chemistry while outlawing any mention of natural remedies that work much better (like omega-3 oils, which are natural brain chemistry stabilizers). The FDA also utterly fails to ban toxic chemical food ingredients known to destroy healthy brain chemistry (like MSG and artificial food coloring).

Read entire article


Anti Bacterial Hand Sanitizers Contaminated with Bacteria

June 10, 2009

David Goodhue
All Headline News
June 10, 2009

Washington, DC (AHN) – The Food and Drug Administration is warning consumers not to use hand sanitizers made by a Utah chemical company.

Clarcon Biological Chemistry Laboratory Inc. of Roy, Utah has voluntarily recalled some of its skin sanitizers and skin protectants marketed under different brand names because of high levels of disease-causing bacteria found in the product during a recent inspection by the FDA.

The FDA is warning people not to use any Clarcon products.

The bacteria found during the inspections can cause infections of the skin and underlying tissues, the FDA said in a press release. These infections could cause a person to require “medical and surgical attention,” the FDA said.

” Findings from the FDA’s recent inspection of the Clarcon facility are particularly concerning because the products are promoted as antimicrobial agents that claim to treat open wounds, damaged skin, and protect against various infectious diseases. The inspection uncovered serious deviations from FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements,” the FDA said on its Web site.

The products the FDA wants consumers not to buy and to throw away if they have them are: Citrushield Lotion; Dermasentials DermaBarrier; Dermassentials by Clarcon Antimicrobial Hand Sanitizer; Iron Fist Barrier Hand Treatment; Skin Shield Restaurant; Shik Shield Industrial; Skin Shield Beauty Salon Lotion; Total Skin Care Beauty; and Total Skin Care Work.


FDA Panel Weighs Antipsychotic Drug Use in Kids

June 9, 2009

Reuters
June 9, 2009

Editors Note: Even though the FDA says antipsychotic drugs are effective, this site and many other sources have chronicled the very dangerous side effects like depression, hallucination, and heart disease, just to name a few. Also, the FDA’s credibility is non existent after it came out that directors were paid millions to cover up the BPA scandal.

ADELPHI, Maryland (Reuters) – U.S. advisers began considering on Tuesday whether the makers of three blockbuster antipsychotic drugs should be allowed to promote them for children and teens with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

Eli Lilly and Co’s Zyprexa, AstraZeneca’s Seroquel and Pfizer’s Geodon are approved for adults and already used to treat children. But the companies need Food and Drug Administration approval before they can advertise them specifically for youths as young as 10.

Winning FDA clearance for wider use may boost sales, which already top a combined $10 billion annually.

Reviewers at the FDA agree the medicines appear effective for treating symptoms, Dr. Thomas Laughren, director of its psychiatry drugs division, told a panel of outside experts. The agency wants the advisers to consider the risks of weight gain, sleepiness and other reactions before deciding whether to recommend approval in younger patients, he said.

Side effects “are of particular concern in pediatric patients primarily because these are lifelong disorders, and these children would face many decades of taking these drugs,” Laughren said.

The drugs are members of a family called atypical antipsychotics. Two similar medicines, Johnson & Johnson’s Risperdal and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co’s Abilify, already are approved to treat youths with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia.

The medicines under review already are widely used. Zyprexa is Lilly’s top-selling drug, with sales of $4.7 billion. Seroquel is the second-best-selling product for AstraZeneca, with 2008 sales of $4.5 billion. Sales of Pfizer’s Geodon topped $1 billion in 2008.

Laughren said it was “important to acknowledge that both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are serious illnesses in pediatric patients” and place burdens on families. Schizophrenia causes hallucinations, delusions and disorganized thoughts, while bipolar disorder causes dramatic mood swings from manic episodes to depression.

AstraZeneca data showed children “are susceptible to the same risks seen of (Seroquel) for adults,” Liza O’Dowd, a vice president of the company, told the panel. The risks “can be monitored and managed” and are described in the drug’s prescribing instructions, she said.

Lilly and Pfizer were scheduled to speak to the panel later on Tuesday. In summaries released before the meeting, both companies said their drugs’ risks were acceptable, given their benefits for treating serious mental illnesses.

The FDA advisers were expected to vote Wednesday on whether the medicines were effective and acceptably safe for various age groups. The agency will make the final decision, but usually follows panel recommendations.

AstraZeneca and Lilly are seeking approval for treating acute episodes of both schizophrenia and bipolar mania. Pfizer’s application asks for approval only in bipolar disorder.


FDA Panel Chairman on Bisphenol-A Secretly Received $5 Million Payment

June 7, 2009

David Gutierrez
Natural News
June 7, 2009

As an FDA panel prepares to issue a ruling on whether the controversial chemical bisphenol A (BPA) should be considered safe, press reports have revealed that the research center headed by the panel’s chair recently received a massive donation from a vocal BPA supporter and former medical device manufacturer.

In July, the University of Michigan’s Risk Science Center, headed by FDA panel chair Martin Philbert, received a $5 million donation from anti-regulation activist Charles Gelman. This donation amounted to almost 50 times the center’s annual budget, but was never reported to the FDA.

Gelman vocally supports organizations that are critical of research into the risks of chemicals, global warming and other environmental hazards. He also has a long history of opposing government regulation of pollutants.

Gelman told reporters that he considers BPA to be perfectly safe, and that he made his perspective clear to Philbert on multiple occasions.

“He knows where I stand,” he said.

The FDA’s associate commissioner for science, Norris Alderson, responded to the revelation by saying that since Gelman’s salary was not paid from Gelman’s donation, the agency does not regard it as a conflict of interest.

BPA is a widely used industrial chemical that helps make plastics hard and translucent. It has found uses in polycarbonate plastic water and baby bottles, as part of the resins that line cans of food, and in non-food products such as compact discs.

Laboratory studies have implicated the chemical as a hormone mimic and endocrine disruptor, however, with the potential to cause reproductive, developmental and neurological problems, particularly in infants and children. Concerns over the chemical have been heightened by findings that it can leach from plastics and resins into food and beverages, especially when heated. Scientists have found traces of the chemical in the bodies of 90 percent of people over the age of six.

Sources for this story include: www.washingtonpost.com.


Big Pharma May be Handed Blanket Immunity for All Drug Side Effects, Deaths

June 4, 2009

David Gutierrez
NaturalNews
November 5, 2008

The Supreme Court may rule that pharmaceutical companies cannot be sued for dangerous or even deadly side effects from their drugs if those side effects arise from an FDA-approved use.

Under a legal argument known as “pre-emption,” the FDA’s approval of a drug absolves companies of any responsibility if that drug later turns out to be dangerous, even if information was concealed from the FDA during the approval process. While courts have rejected this argument for decades, the winds appear to be shifting.

In February, the Supreme Court ruled that makers of medical devices were indeed immune from state lawsuits if their devices had received FDA approval. But that decision hinged on the specific wording of the law that gives the FDA authority over medical devices, and the laws relating to drug regulation are not worded the same way.

Even so, the Bush administration has been actively urging the courts to apply the same principle to drugs. The administration argues that only the FDA is equipped to regulate drugs and decide whether a product is safe, and that judges or juries are not able to make informed decisions on those matters.

The FDA has also recently thrown its support behind pre-emption, reversing a longstanding, de-facto policy of viewing lawsuits as an extra layer of oversight to make up for the agency’s time and budget constraints. Now the agency says that lawsuits over drug side effects could lead to a confusing state-by-state regulatory patchwork that would cause hardship to drug companies and discourage patients from taking certain medications.

Drug companies are using the pre-emption argument as a legal defense in a wide variety of lawsuits, and the Supreme Court is expected to hear such a case, concerning the company Wyeth, in the fall. Before that, however, a lower federal court is expected to rule on whether pre-emption can be used to dismiss lawsuits by more than 3,000 women who claim that they were injured by using Johnson & Johnson’s OrthoEvra birth control patch according to the instructions on the label.

When Johnson & Johnson announced its plans for a birth control patch in 1996, one of the main benefits it claimed the product would provide was the ability to prevent pregnancies through lower doses of estrogen than birth control pills. High doses of estrogen are known to increase women’s risks of blood clots, heart attacks, strokes and death.

But company documents publicized as part of the lawsuits show that in 1999, the company discovered that the patch actually exposed women to significantly more estrogen than the pill, a total of 30 to 38 micrograms per day. Because only about half of the estrogen in a birth control pill actually enters the bloodstream, this means that women using the patch were getting as much estrogen each day as if they were taking a 76 microgram birth control pill.

The FDA banned birth control pills containing more than 50 micrograms of estrogen in 1988.

Rather than reporting this data to the FDA, however, the study’s author instead applied a “correction factor,” reducing the estrogen figures by 40 percent. Although the author claimed this was meant to adjust for differing rates of estrogen absorption, such a “correction” was a deviation from the study procedure previously submitted to the FDA.

In the final report submitted to the FDA, Johnson & Johnson claimed that OrthoEvra exposed women to only 20 micrograms of estrogen per day. The “correction factor” was referenced only once in the 435-page study report, buried in a complex mathematical formula.

READ ARTICLE