We are all in a kind of experiment. You never agreed to take part in it. But it’s triggering infertility, tumors, kidney and liver disease and more.

The federal government not only allows it to happen, they’re appointing people to key positions to make the experiment official policy. Case in point: President Obama’s new “food safety czar” is a former vice president at Monsanto, one of the world’s most powerful Big-Agra giants.

The political lobbying, the presidential appointments and their secretive policies are helping to put untested mutations on your dinner table in the form of GMOs – genetically modified organisms.

Genetically modified foods have never been proven safe. And the test results that reveal problems never see the light of day. When you eat them, you’re taking part in a global Franken-foods experiment.

The facts – the few we’re allowed to know – are scary. Today I’ll show you how and why this horror show is unfolding and what you can do to avoid the crippling side effects.

President Appoints Fox to Guard Henhouse

Our president was elected on a platform of change. But when it comes to food safety it’s business as usual.

Why would I say this? Look at President Obama’s choices to head the USDA and the FDA: Tom Vilsack and Michael Taylor.

Mr. Vilsack is a long-time supporter of genetically modified foods. In fact, Vilsack recently pushed his GMO agenda at the Food Security Conference in Iowa.

But Michael Taylor, the new “food safety czar,” is the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse.

Taylor has a long history of lobbying for – and being employed by – Big-Agra companies with a vested interest in GMOs. Not only was Taylor a vice president at Monsanto, he was one of the FDA officials who signed off on an FDA policy stating that GMOs don’t need safety testing.

And who benefits? You guessed it: Monsanto.

Court Case Uncovers Monsanto Bribes of Government Officials

Back in 2000, Monsanto wanted to plant over 49,000 acres of genetically modified cotton in Indonesia. But hours before the agreement with Indonesia’s government was to be signed, it was shot down by the Ministers of Economy and Environment. There had been no environmental assessment, as required by Indonesian law.

But just five months later, the Minister of Agriculture signed the agreement with Monsanto, without the required environmental assessment.

Why? As it turns out, it was a $50,000 bribe from a Monsanto employee that did the trick.

But that $50,000 was just the tip of the iceberg. As it turned out in U.S. court, Monsanto had paid some $700,000 in bribes to Indonesian officials, and wound up slapped with a $1.5 million fine.1

According to a report in the Asia Times, 140 Indonesian officials received bribes from Monsanto over the deal, including a former Minster of Agriculture, whose wife received a house worth $373,990.

Now, I realize that Indonesia was known at the time for official corruption. But if the genetically modified crop was really safe, wouldn’t it be easier to simply prepare the required assessment?

Even more disturbing is an earlier U.S. government policy that cleared the way for us to become unwilling lab rats.

Mutant Killers Masquerading as Real Food

When giant agricultural corporations wanted to flood the market with genetically modified seeds, there was a problem. What about safety? What were the effects of eating an ear of corn laced with pesticide? What would happen if someone ate soybeans designed to survive the potent herbicide Round-up?

Not a problem, announced the federal government. As long as these “Frankenfoods” are “substantially equivalent” to the real thing, the GMO products would be deemed safe – and made available for sale.

So, if a GMO food – or other plant – is “substantially equivalent” in composition and nutritional characteristics, it doesn’t have to be tested for safety.

Continued from Newsletter

Imagine for a moment if we applied this standard to children’s toys.

Let’s say you have the choice between two toy trucks that are nearly identical. One is painted with red, lead-free paint with plastic wheels. The other is identical, except that the paint contains lead. In other words, the two toys are “substantially equivalent,” except for one tiny detail.

Which toy would you choose for your child? Obviously, you’d choose the one without the lead paint.

So what’s the problem? The two toys are substantially equivalent. They’re made of the exact same materials.

There’s just that one tiny difference. But that difference can send you to an early grave.

This may be a simplified example of “substantial equivalence.” But it certainly points out the problems we may face when new or modified foods are allowed on your store shelves without testing.

And responsible scientists weren’t shy about pointing out the problems with the policy of substantial equivalence, either.

Geneva Sounds Alarm Against Using the “Substantially Equivalent” Rule…

In 1998, Geneva’s Center for Environmental Law argued against the World Trade Organization accepting “substantial equivalence” as a standard for GMO safety.

They pointed out that it was inadequate to prove safety… it would undermine meaningful standards in those countries that chose to enact them… and that substantial equivalence ignored scientific research that showed “substantially equivalent” GMO foods had significant negative health impacts.2

Unfortunately for all of us, commercial interests won out over science.

That’s bad news. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine points out, GMO foods have been linked to:

Infertility
Weakened immune system
Accelerated aging
Genetic problems with cholesterol, insulin control, cell signaling, and protein formation
Changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system3
These Franken-foods may be “substantially equivalent,” but the research shows they’re substantially more dangerous, too.
But I’m not just quoting wild accusations. There’s plenty of solid science at work here. Take a look at some of the studies I’ve found…

You’re Playing Russian Roulette, American Style

In the rush to please the agribusiness giants, your government has sold you out. Today, as many as 85% of the processed foods on store shelves contain genetically modified ingredients.4

And that’s not good, if the few studies on GM foods can be believed.

In 2008, Italian researchers found that GM foods had a negative impact on the immune systems of mice.5

Turkish scientists found evidence of liver and kidney disease in rats fed genetically modified corn.6

And Danish researchers found enough differences in rats fed genetically modified rice to question its safety.7

So where are the studies? A medical researcher in Spain found that there’s an almost complete lack of proof that GM foods are safe.8

And there’s a good reason why.

Scientists Forbidden from Testing GMO Crops

So where is all the research on genetically modified crops? It simply doesn’t exist.

Wouldn’t you think that a new technology – one that holds both great promise and great questions – would be studied to the Nth degree? I sure would. But here’s why GMOs haven’t been studied thoroughly…

The manufacturers won’t allow it.

That’s right. Monsanto – and the handful of other big producers of genetically modified crops – don’t allow scientific testing.

If you want to get your hands on GMO seeds, you have to sign an “end-user agreement,” just as if you were buying software. And these end-user agreements ban testing and comparisons to other products. The only testing that happens is testing that the manufacturers approve.

As Scientific American points out, the only tests approved are those that the manufacturers decide are “friendly.”9

So, are genetically modified foods safe for you to eat? Sorry… That’s on a need-to-know basis. And the manufacturers have decided that you don’t need to know.

That leaves one important question. What can you do? Fortunately, you can do something to protect yourself and your family from Frankenfoods.

Four Simple Steps to Protect You and Your Family

1. Whenever possible, buy organic. The safest foods are certified-organic foods. If your grocer doesn’t carry organic foods, let them know you’ll shop elsewhere if they don’t begin stocking them.

2. Find a farmer’s market in your area: Eating locally is the best way to get the freshest organic food with no trace of GMOs. Try these websites: http://www.farmersmarket.com or http://www.localharvest.org

3. For dairy products and other packaged foods, look for a “non-GMO” label. This can be tricky, because the manufacturers of genetically modified foods are lobbying hard to get “non-GMO” labels banned. But for now, they’re still legal. And, in my opinion, a good sign that these foods are safer.

4. When you can, “grow your own.” Non-GMO seed companies have moved much of their seed production to Europe and Asia, where contamination is less likely. American agribusiness giants have less clout in these countries, and untainted seeds are still available.

5. Let your members of Congress and the Senate know you’re concerned about this issue and demand that genetically modified crops be banned until proven safe.

To Your Good Health,

Al Sears MD

Dr. Al Sears, M.D. is a board-certified clinical nutrition specialist. His practice, Dr. Sears’ Health & Wellness Center in Royal Palm Beach, Fla., specializes in alternative medicine. He is the author of seven books in the fields of alternative medicine, anti-aging, and nutritional supplementation, including The Doctor’s Heart Cure. To get his free special report on the proven anti-aging strategies for building a vibrant, disease-free life, go here now. You’ll learn how to stop Father Time without giving up the foods you love.

1. Asia Times, January 20, 2005. See http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/GA20Ae04.html
2. Stilwell M and Van Dyke B. Codex, Substantial Equivalence and WTO Threats to National GMO Labeling Schemes. Center for Environmental Law. http://www.ciel.org/Publications/CODEXSubstantialEquivalenceandWTO.pdf
3. American Academy of Environmental Medicine. Genetically Modified Foods. See http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
4. Harlander S. Safety Assessments and Public Concern for Genetically Modified Food Products: The American View. Toxicologic Pathology, Vol. 30, No. 1, 132-134 (2002).
5. Alberto Finamore, et al. Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice. J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56 (23), pp 11533-11539.
6. Kilic A and Akay MT. A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008 Mar;46(3):1164-70. Epub 2007 Dec 5.
7. Poulsen M, et al. A 90-day safety study in Wistar rats fed genetically modified rice expressing snowdrop lectin Galanthus nivalis (GNA). Food Chem Toxicol. 2007 Mar;45(3):350-63. Epub 2006 Sep 14.
8. Domingo JL. Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: a review of the published literature. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2007;47(8):721-33.
9. Scientific American. August 2009. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

STATEMENT OF Dr. J. WILLIAM HIRZY
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION CHAPTER 280
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WILDLIFE, FISHERIES AND DRINKING WATER
UNITED STATES SENATE
JUNE 29, 2000

EPA workers union lobby against Fluoride

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to present the views of the union, of which I am a Vice-President, on the subject of fluoridation of public water supplies.

Our union is comprised of and represents the professional employees at the headquarters location of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington D.C. Our members include toxicologists, biologists, chemists, engineers, lawyers and others defined by law as “professionals.” The work we do includes evaluation of toxicity, exposure and economic information for management’s use in formulating public health and environmental protection policy. I am not here as a representative of EPA, but rather as a representative of EPA headquarters professional employees, through their duly elected labor union. The union first got involved in this issue in 1985 as a matter of professional ethics. In 1997 we most recently voted to oppose fluoridation. Our opposition has strengthened since then.

Summary of Recommendations

1) We ask that you order an independent review of a cancer bioassay previously mandated by Congressional committee and subsequently performed by Battelle Memorial Institute with appropriate blinding and instructions that all reviewer’s independent determinations be reported to this Committee.

2) We ask that you order that the two waste products of the fertilizer industry that are now used in 90% of fluoridation programs, for which EPA states they are not able to identify any chronic studies, be used in any future toxicity studies, rather than a substitute chemical. Further, since federal agencies are actively advocating that each man woman and child drink, eat and bathe in these chemicals, silicofluorides should be placed at the head of the list for establishing a MCL that complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This means that the MCL be protective of the most sensitive of our population, including infants, with an appropriate margin of safety for ingestion over an entire lifetime.

3) We ask that you order an epidemiology study comparing children with dental fluorosis to those not displaying overdose during growth and development years for behavioral and other disorders.

4) We ask that you convene a joint Congressional Committee to give the only substance that is being mandated for ingestion throughout this country the full hearing that it deserves.

National Review of Fluoridation

The Subcommittee’s hearing today can only begin to get at the issues surrounding the policy of water fluoridation in the United States, a massive experiment that has been run on the American public, without informed consent, for over fifty years. The last Congressional hearings on this subject were held in 1977. Much knowledge has been gained in the intervening years. It is high time for a national review of this policy by a Joint Select Committee of Congress. New hearings should explore, at minimum, these points:

1) excessive and un-controlled fluoride exposures;
2) altered findings of a cancer bioassay;
3) the results and implications of recent brain effects research;
4) the “protected pollutant” status of fluoride within EPA;
5) the altered recommendations to EPA of a 1983 Surgeon General’s Panel on fluoride;
6) the results of a fifty-year experiment on fluoridation in two New York communities;
7) the findings of fact in three landmark lawsuits since 1978;
the findings and implications of recent research linking the predominant fluoridation chemical with elevated blood-lead levels in children and anti-social behavior; and
9) changing views among dental researchers on the efficacy of water fluoridation
Fluoride Exposures Are Excessive and Un-controlled

According to a study by the National Institute of Dental Research, 66 percent of America’s children in fluoridated communities show the visible sign of over-exposure and fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis (1). That result is from a survey done in the mid-1980’s and the figure today is undoubtedly much higher.

Centers for Disease Control and EPA claim that dental fluorosis is only a “cosmetic” effect. God did not create humans with fluorosed teeth. That effect occurs when children ingest more fluoride than their bodies can handle with the metabolic processes we were born with, and their teeth are damaged as a result. And not only their teeth. Children’s bones and other tissues, as well as their developing teeth are accumulating too much fluoride. We can see the effect on teeth. Few researchers, if any, are looking for the effects of excessive fluoride exposure on bone and other tissues in American children. What has been reported so far in this connection is disturbing. One example is epidemiological evidence (2a, 2b) showing elevated bone cancer in young men related to consumption of fluoridated drinking water.

Without trying to ascribe a cause and effect relationship beforehand, we do know that American children in large numbers are afflicted with hyperactivity-attention deficit disorder, that autism seems to be on the rise, that bone fractures in young athletes and military personnel are on the rise, that earlier onset of puberty in young women is occurring. There are biologically plausible mechanisms described in peer-reviewed research on fluoride that can link some of these effects to fluoride exposures (e.g. 3,4,5,6). Considering the economic and human costs of these conditions, we believe that Congress should order epidemiology studies that use dental fluorosis as an index of exposure to determine if there are links between such effects and fluoride over-exposure.

In the interim, while this epidemiology is conducted, we believe that a national moratorium on water fluoridation should be instituted. There will be a hue and cry from some quarters, predicting increased dental caries, but Europe has about the same rate of dental caries as the U.S. (7) and most European countries do not fluoridate (8). I am submitting letters from European and Asian authorities on this point. There are studies in the U.S. of localities that have interrupted fluoridation with no discernable increase in dental caries rates (e.g., 9). And people who want the freedom of choice to continue to ingest fluoride can do so by other means.

Cancer Bioassay Findings

In 1990, the results of the National Toxicology Program cancer bioassay on sodium fluoride were published (10), the initial findings of which would have ended fluoridation. But a special commission was hastily convened to review the findings, resulting in the salvation of fluoridation through systematic down-grading of the evidence of carcinogenicity. The final, published version of the NTP report says that there is, “equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats,” changed from “clear evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats.”

The change prompted Dr. William Marcus, who was then Senior Science Adviser and Toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water, to blow the whistle about the issue (22), which led to his firing by EPA. Dr. Marcus sued EPA, won his case and was reinstated with back pay, benefits and compensatory damages. I am submitting material from Dr. Marcus to the Subcommittee dealing with the cancer and neurotoxicity risks posed by fluoridation.

We believe the Subcommittee should call for an independent review of the tumor slides from the bioassay, as was called for by Dr. Marcus (22), with the results to be presented in a hearing before a Select Committee of the Congress. The scientists who conducted the original study, the original reviewers of the study, and the “review commission” members should be called, and an explanation given for the changed findings.

Brain Effects Research

Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children (11,12). Another paper (3) shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the “optimal” dosage of fluoride, viz. one part per million (13). And another (14) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other paper from that journal. Another publication (5) links fluoride dosing to adverse effects on the brain’s pineal gland and pre-mature onset of sexual maturity in animals. Earlier onset of menstruation of girls in fluoridated Newburg, New York has also been reported (6).

Given the national concern over incidence of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and autism in our children, we believe that the authors of these studies should be called before a Select Committee, along with those who have critiqued their studies, so the American public and the Congress can understand the implications of this work.

Fluoride as a Protected Pollutant

The classic example of EPA’s protective treatment of this substance, recognized the world over and in the U.S. before the linguistic de-toxification campaign of the 1940’s and 1950’s as a major environmental pollutant, is the 1983 statement by EPA’s then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer (15), that EPA views the use of hydrofluosilicic acid recovered from the waste stream of phosphate fertilizer manufacture as,

“…an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid (sic) from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride…”
In other words, the solution to pollution is dilution, as long as the pollutant is dumped straight into drinking water systems and not into rivers or the atmosphere. I am submitting a copy of her letter.

Other Federal entities are also protective of fluoride. Congressman Calvert of the House Science Committee has sent letters of inquiry to EPA and other Federal entities on the matter of fluoride, answers to which have not yet been received.

We believe that EPA and other Federal officials should be called to testify on the manner in which fluoride has been protected. The union will be happy to assist the Congress in identifying targets for an inquiry. For instance, hydrofluosilicic acid does not appear on the Toxic Release Inventory list of chemicals, and there is a remarkable discrepancy among the Maximum Contaminant Levels for fluoride, arsenic and lead, given the relative toxicities of these substances.

Surgeon General’s Panel on Fluoride

We believe that EPA staff and managers should be called to testify, along with members of the 1983 Surgeon General’s panel and officials of the Department of Human Services, to explain how the original recommendations of the Surgeon General’s panel (16) were altered to allow EPA to set otherwise unjustifiable drinking water standards for fluoride.

Kingston and Newburg, New York Results

In 1998, the results of a fifty-year fluoridation experiment involving Kingston, New York (un-fluoridated) and Newburg, New York (fluoridated) were published (17). In summary, there is no overall significant difference in rates of dental decay in children in the two cities, but children in the fluoridated city show significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than children in the un-fluoridated city.

We believe that the authors of this study and representatives of the Centers For Disease Control and EPA should be called before a Select Committee to explain the increase in dental fluorosis among American children and the implications of that increase for skeletal and other effects as the children mature, including bone cancer, stress fractures and arthritis.

Findings of Fact by Judges

In three landmark cases adjudicated since 1978 in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas (18), judges with no interest except finding fact and administering justice heard prolonged testimony from proponents and opponents of fluoridation and made dispassionate findings of fact. I cite one such instance here.

In November, 1978, Judge John Flaherty, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued findings in the case, Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, tried before him in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas. Testimony in the case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully elucidated the benefits and risks of water fluoridation as understood in 1978. Judge Flaherty issued an injunction against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned on jurisdictional grounds. His findings of fact were not disturbed by appellate action. Judge Flaherty, in a July, 1979 letter to the Mayor of Aukland New Zealand wrote the following about the case:

“In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary…

“Prior to hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impune (sic) the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation.”

In the Illinois decision, Judge Ronald Niemann concludes: “This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature’s determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.”

Judge Anthony Farris in Texas found: “[That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by {Houston} City ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illness in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to reduction of tooth decay in man.”

The significance of Judge Flaherty’s statement and his and the other two judges’ findings of fact is this: proponents of fluoridation are fond of reciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which have long-standing commitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Now come three truly independent servants of justice, the judges in these three cases, and they find that fluoridation of water supplies is not justified.

Proponents of fluoridation are absolutely right about one thing: there is no real controversy about fluoridation when the facts are heard by an open mind.

I am submitting a copy of the excerpted letter from Judge Flaherty and another letter referenced in it that was sent to Judge Flaherty by Dr. Peter Sammartino, then Chancellor of Fairleigh Dickenson University. I am also submitting a reprint copy of an article in the Spring 1999 issue of the Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law by Jack Graham and Dr. Pierre Morin, titled “Highlights in North American Litigation During the Twentieth Century on Artificial Fluoridation of Public Water. Mr. Graham was chief litigator in the case before Judge Flaherty and in the other two cases (in Illinois and Texas).

We believe that Mr. Graham should be called before a Select Committee along with, if appropriate, the judges in these three cases who could relate their experience as trial judges in these cases.

Hydrofluosilicic Acid

There are no chronic toxicity data on the predominant chemical, hydrofluosilicic acid and its sodium salt, used to fluoridate American communities. Newly published studies (19) indicate a link between use of these chemicals and elevated level of lead in children’s blood and anti-social behavior. Material from the authors of these studies has been submitted by them independently.

We believe the authors of these papers and their critics should be called before a Select Committee to explain to you and the American people what these papers mean for continuation of the policy of fluoridation.

Changing Views on Efficacy and Risk

In recent years, two prominent dental researchers who were leaders of the pro-fluoridation movement announced reversals of their former positions because they concluded that water fluoridation is not an effective means of reducing dental caries and that it poses serious risks to human health. The late Dr. John Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer of Aukland, New Zealand, and he published his reasons for changing sides in 1997 (20). In 1999, Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, announced his change of views, then published a statement (21) dated April 2000. I am submitting a copy of Dr. Limeback’s publications.

We believe that Dr. Limeback, along with fluoridation proponents who have not changed their minds, such as Drs. Ernest Newbrun and Herschel Horowitz, should be called before a Select Committee to testify on the reasons for their respective positions.

Thank you for you consideration, and I will be happy to take questions.

CITATIONS

1.Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Heller, K.E, Eklund, S.A. and Burt, B.A. J. Pub. Health Dent. 57 136-43 (1997).

2a. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992).

2b. Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National Cancer Institute. In: Review of fluoride: benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services.1991: F1-F7.

3. Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995)

4a. Fluoride and bone – quantity versus quality [editorial] N. Engl. J. Med. 322 845-6 (1990)

4b. Summary of workshop on drinking water fluoride influence on hip fracture and bone health. Gordon, S.L. and Corbin, S.B. Natl. Inst. Health. April 10, 1991.

5. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994).

6. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R., Overton, D.E., Chase, H.C., and Cantwell, K.T. JADA 52 296-306 (1956).

7. WHO oral health country/area profile programme. Department of Non-Communicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health. WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmö University, Sweden. URL: www.whocollab.odont.lu.se/countriesalphab.htmlwww.whocollab.odont.lu.se/countriesalphab.html

8. Letters from government authorities in response to inquiries on fluoridation status by E. Albright. Eugene Albright: contact through J. W. Hirzy, P.O. Box 76082, Washington, D.C. 20013.

9. The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis. Burt B.A., Keels ., Heller KE. J. Dent. Res. 2000 Feb;79(2):761-9.

10. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991).

11. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)

12. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995).

13. Chronic administration of aluminum- fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998).

14. Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai, Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar and G. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998).

15. Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic (sic) acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983.

16. Transcript of proceedings – Surgeon General’s (Koop) ad hoc committee on non-dental effects of fluoride. April 18-19, 1983. National Institutes of Health. Bethesda, MD.

17. Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. and Green, E.L. New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47.

18. Highlights in North American litigation during the twentieth century on artificial fluoridation of public water supplies. Graham, J.R. and Morin, P. Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 14 195-248 (Spring 1999) Florida State University College of Law.

19. Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. Masters, R.D. and Coplan, M.J. Intern. J. Environ. Studies 56 435-49 (1999).

20. Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. And Medicine 41 1-16 (1997).

21. Letter. Limeback, H. April 2000. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto.

22. Memorandum: Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division Office of Drinking Water. May 1, 1990.

Frank Zane

Born June 28, 1942
Kingston, Pennsylvania, USA

A 1970’s rendition of the Steve Reeves look, Frank Zane was proportioned and defined at under 200 pounds, and had a career that exemplified persistence. His was no meteoric rise to the top. After 10 years of working out, he won the 1968 IFBB Mr. America and IFBB Mr. Universe titles, handing a loss in the Mr. Universe contest to no less a body than Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In 1969, Frank captured the IFBB Mr. World title. Zane competed in five IFBB Mr. Olympia’s before winning the sport’s top title in 1977, and then dominated the competition for the next two years.

When the sport experienced a massive expansion in the late ‘70s, he was the perfect spokesman for bodybuilding, his cultured persona and articulate nature a contradiction of the “musclehead” stereotype. He was seriously injured before the 1980 IFBB Mr. Olympia, but showed courage to persevere and gain third place.

His career finale was represented by fourth place at the 1983 IFBB Mr. Olympia, after which he opened Zane Haven in Palm Springs, California, where he still lives with his wife Christine. True to his Renaissance-man image, Frank continues to publish books, his latest - Frank Zane Mind, Body, Spirit.

For more info on Frank Zane visit www. FrankZane.com

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, is a component of the Department of Health and Human Services of the federal government. It’s main purpose is to track and prevent diseases and viruses that could effect large populations of the United States, although it also has other functions such as administering health warnings, registering toxic materials, setting safety guidelines for workplaces and other public health administrative tasks.

The CDC was formed in 1946 and was known then as the Communicable Disease Center. Its first task, and the reason for its formation in the first place, was to eradicate malaria using pesticides and an army of sprayers. Today, the CDC is most known for its tracking of disease outbreaks across the country. Food-born illnesses like Ecoli as well as other viruses such as Swine Flu are tracked by the CDC and its staff works to isolate and treat the outbreaks. The CDC is also a leader in scientific research to develop cures and vaccines for viruses as they come.

For more information about the CDC, please visit their Website at www.cdc.gov/.

• DO NOT contact us regarding any products shown on HealthandFitnessTalk.com; Instead, please contact the merchant\advertiser via their website directly.
  
• DO NOT contact us about sales or information about illegal steroids. That’s against the law. We DO NOT Condone sales and\or use of illegal steroids.
  

Advertisers:

If you wish to contact us regarding advertising your product on HealthandFitnessTalk.com, please select “Advertising Related” from the drop-down menu. We DO NOT sell advertising to merchants\advertisers who sell illegal steroids. Please DO NOT contact us if you sell illegal substances from your website. We are not interested in doing business with you.

[dekoboko]

. Gardiner is a Canadian Bodybuilding Competitor. He is married with two children. He loves cooking and long walks on the beach.
L. Gardiner is currently majoring in Nuclear Engineering at the Edmonton University with a minor in Poetry. He has long been concerned about the environment and started a Community Garden Program in his city.
He spends his free time entertaining sick children as a clown at the local Children?s Hospital and mentoring inner city kids.
He hopes to some day bring an end to world hunger and solve the problem of the lack of clean drinking water in Africa.

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

The Atkins Diet

www.atkins.com

The Atkins Diet is a diet program that focuses on lowering carb intake for weight loss. It is also a complete nutritional system that tracks nutritional changes in the body and uses supplements to keep users of the diet at peak health.

Weight Watchers

www.weightwatchers.com

Weight Watchers is a community-based diet program that uses peer support to keep dieters focused on loosing weight. In the diet program, food is given a point value and users are allowed a certain amount of points per day according to their health needs.

South Beach Diet

www.southbeachdiet.com

The South Beach diet program is another low-carb diet program that focuses on being easy for dieters to follow and stay on. The program starts with a period of eliminating all carbs from the diet, followed by successive steps of adding back “good carbs” into the diet.

Body-for-LIFE

www.bodyforlife.com

The Body-for-LIFE diet plan is part of an entire health regimine that includes eating nutritional foods and daily workouts. This program is an intense but proven way to get into shape and live healthy.

Jenny Craig

www.jennycraig.com

The Jenny Craig Diet program is a support-style diet program that utilizes diet counselors to coach the dieter through weight loss, exercise and positive mental health

The Zone Diet

www.zonediet.com

The Zone Diet is a plan that uses Omega-3 supplements and Polyphenols to help the body burn fat. The diet also focuses on nutritional foods for building muscle and burning fat. The Zone was designed for athletes and people who have active lifestyles.

Nutrisystem

www.nutrisystem.com

The Nutrisystem diet is a diet program that uses pre-made food that is low in fat and carbohydrates. The dieter purchases a months worth of food from Nutrisystem and eats a breakfast, lunch, dinner and dessert from the pre-chosen menu to insure no over-eating.

eDiets

www.ediets.com

eDiets is an entirely online diet program. Users sign up for a weight loss profile and then start a menu program that is based on a calorie allowance based on the profile. The menus are flexible for vegetarians, diabetics and people with active lifestyles.

Smart For Life

www.smartforlife.com

Smart For Life is a diet program that specifies the kind of diet the user should use based on a profile that recognizes if there are any metabolic or hormonal obstacles that the user may have that prevents weight loss. Once the profile recognizes what diet the user should be on, a menu is established that avoids problem foods that cause over-eating and weight gain.

More Online Diet Resources

Visit these Web pages for more information on other popular diet programs.

www.dietprogramreviews.com

A site that reviews various popular diets.

www.freedieting.com

For the frugal dieter, freedieting.com gives dieting tips and resources without the expensive consultations and convenience food costs.

www.gotdiet.com

A resource center that reviews popular diets and also has a handy coupon section for dieters looking for a deal.

www.consumersearch.com/weight-loss-programs

Consumer Research reviews diet programs for their effectiveness with the consumer in mind. A helpful siter to avoid rip=off diet programs.

www.thedietchannel.com

An authoritative site dedicated entirely to the dieting culture.

www.weight-dieting.org

Covers the psychology of dieting and why most dieters (and diets) fail. This site also debunks many of the popular diet pills that are unproven to work.

www.dietcenter.com

An all-inclusive online diet resource center that recommends diet programs and gives information on the truths and myths surrounding dieting.