Soy has penetrated the food supply in a bad way. It can be found in nearly three quarters of processed foods used as a filler for meats, in vegetable oil, mac and cheese, salad dressings and as an emulsifier in nearly everything. The soy industry has become a powerhouse and with doctors touting it’s benefits for a low-calorie diet its demand grew beyond tofu lovers.

But those glory days for soy are slowing down as research in the passing years has linked it to numerous problems such as cancer, low-testosterone levels and of course, infertility. There is still debate going on about whether soy products such as tofu, tempeh and edamame also pose such risks since these products have been used as a part of healthy diets for centuries. But what is certain of the soy found in processed foods is that it is not going to hold any of the potential nutritional benefits and instead poses major risks to health. This is especially true since most soy consumed today is genetically modified and doused heavily with herbicides and pesticides, then its often put through a hydrolyzing process turning the soy into something that really isn’t soy anymore, just a chemical sludge.

“The extraction process of hydroliysis involves boiling in a vat of acid (e.g., sulfuric acid) and then neutralizing the solution with a caustic soda. The reultant sludge is scraped off the top and allowed to dry. In addition to soy protein it contains free-form excitoxic amino acids (e.g., MSG) and other potentially harmful chemical processes described above. There is a possibility that gentically-manipulated bacteria may be used.

“The food industry sometimes uses large amount of hydrolyzed proteins as a “taste enhancer” because it contains significant amounts of MSG (monosodium glutamate). This is what is known in the food industry as “Clean Labels” — adding MSG to food, without having to list it as “MSG” on the label. “In almost all cases, hydrolyzed soy protein contains a significant amount of genetically-manipulated soy. The hydrolyzed protein products currently added to foods should be considered a detriment to one’s health. There are much healthier sources of soy protein and soy nutrients.”- soyinfo.com

People are repeatedly exposing themselves to these harmful chemicals while consuming soy, under the guise that it is a diet enhancing alternative and a beneficial ingredient when added to other foods. This belief was fueled by the American Heart Association’s approval of it in the year 2000 along with the FDA touting “Diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol that include 25 grams of soy protein a day may reduce the risk of heart disease.” I wonder if they were wearing their ‘I’m with stupid’ t-shirts when they made that move. In 2006, the AHA withdrew it’s pro-soy proclamations, but quietly, leaving many people in the dark about the risks.

Studies continue to produce evidence of it’s issues though, alternative news sources have been reporting on the benefits and dangers of soy for years; like this past article from Health Freedoms, The War on Soy: Why the ‘Miracle Food’ May be a Health Risk and Environmental Nightmare. Unless you are consciously avoiding it, chances are you’re eating more soy then you think. Unfortunately the consumers focused on in the article below have no idea or control of what their fed and they are the most susceptible to it’s harm.

Soy has been used as the go-to alternative for lactose sensitive babies for years but it is now being called out for the dangers it poses. In a study conducted by researchers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences they reveal the effects of plant estrogen found in soybean on the reproductivity of mice and the results have spurred the NIEHS to advise that we scrap soy formulas altogether and allow no more than just a few servings per week for those under 18 years of age.

~Health Freedoms

Santa Fe, NM: Research published in this month’s Biology of Reproduction shows that genistein, a plant estrogen found in soybeans, can disrupt the development of the ovaries of newborn female mice, causing reproductive problems and infertility.

“This is a wakeup call for parents and pediatricians,” says Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food. “Soy infant formula contains high levels of phytoestrogens that can adversely affect the development of a baby’s ovaries and other reproductive organs. This study adds to a growing body of evidence linking soy genistein and other phytoestrogens to endocrine disruption. Clearly soy consumption must be considered a factor in America’s epidemic of infertility.”

The study, conducted by researchers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), involved giving injections of soy genistein to three different groups of female mice during the first five days of their lives. The researchers found adverse effects at all levels, including at doses comparable to the amount of genistein found in soy infant formulas given to human infants. Mice treated with the highest dose were infertile and mice treated with the lower doses were subfertile, meaning they had fewer pregnancies and fewer pups per litter. Mice receiving the highest level of genistein showed a high percentage of oocyte (egg cell) clustering, making fertilization much less likely to occur.

“We knew that genistein was linked to reproductive problems later in life but we wanted to find out when the damage occurred,” says Retha R. Newbold, a developmental endocrinologist at NIEHS. “The study showed that genistein caused alterations to the ovaries during early development, which is partly responsible for the reproductive problems found in adult mice.” A previous NIEHS study showed that newborn mice given genistein grew up to experience irregular menstrual cycles, erratic ovulation and other problems indicative of infertility.

“I don’t think we can dismiss the possibility that these phytoestrogens are having an effect on the human population,” said Wendy Jefferson , PhD, lead author of the study. NIEHS director Dr. David Schwartz commented, “Although we are not entirely certain about how these animal studies on genistein translate to the human population, there is some reason to be cautious.”

“The NIEHS is not alone in recommending caution,” says Dr. Daniel. “Last July the Israeli Health Ministry warned that babies should not receive soy formula and that children up to age 18 should eat soy foods or drink soy milk no more than once per day to a maximum of three times per week. The ministry was most concerned about adverse effects on fertility. The French government has also taken these dangers seriously, and is now implementing regulations that will require manufacturers to remove most of the soy estrogens from soy formula and from soy foods targeted to children under 3.“

The evidence is mounting that soy formula puts infants at risk for reproductive problems, including infertility,” says Dr. Daniel. “I hope this important new study will encourage the United States to follow the examples set by the Israeli and French governments and issue warnings that will discourage the sale of soy formula. A good policy is ‘Better safe than sorry.’”

By: Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN

http://www.healthtruthrevealed.com/articles/1729282701/article

Sources:

http://www.soyinfo.com/soydefs.shtml

Gulf residents are fighting for their lives. There are no jobs, nothing to fish for, and no support to receive the medical care that is desperately needed. Meanwhile, tar balls continue to wash up on their shores and oil still oozes from the ground.

During President Obama’s recent State of the Union Address, there was no mention of the disaster in the Gulf. When the oil spilled there was a promise to “make things right” and that BP would be held accountable for the mess. But lately there is little mentioned of continuing clean-up or of other provisions. The predominant coverage is BP’s promotional ads featuring families who were paid to speak gratefully. They praised BP’s generosity for “keeping the community working”  with clean-up and asserted that the beaches and marine life are safe.

In reality, the unemployed who went to work for BP to earn back their lost livelihood were forced to endanger their lives. Their best option for financial survival was exposure to crude poison for the clean-up. Before, their life-long passion of fishing was rewarding in and of itself. Their compensation now? They and their families are suddenly sick. How traumatic for entire communities based on more than a century of catching highly-prized food to be at the mercy of the heartless corporation that caused their suffering.Yes, BP set up a compensation fund, but will it even begin to repair the loss? The fund has done nothing to address health issues and the time has long since passed to file any claims. Now the community reels as BP abandons them and their health crumbles.

As for the beaches and food safety? Gulf residents speak freely that they will not eat or sell the waterlife, nor will they congregate around the toxic gulf. The poison is still there. Eight and a half months later, portions of the Gulf remain so entrenched in oil that it is oozing from the ground. In this recent video from “Liquid crude oozing from just below the surface — Storm will take oil “far inland,” the President of the Plaquemines Parish and the Secretary of Wildlife and Fishery blast BP for its lack of action. It is reprehensible that BP continues to run ads depicting cleanliness and safety when videos like the above clearly show the chemical contaminants creeping inland.

Since the disaster, President Obama has only produced a single report. It’s not a report suggesting resolutions for victims or how to finish the clean-up, but instead it’s a report on causes and methods of future disaster prevention. It seems that today’s cut-throat business of running a country will spare no allowance for reparations to those devastated, but spares plenty to research and report on how to avoid such “expensive” disasters from now on.

President Obama created the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling in May 2010 following the rig’s explosion. The commission released its final report in January after their six months of research. They sponsored a meeting with residents, fisherman, and community activists to discuss the findings. What held precedence for most of the 250 people in attendance, however, was not the research. Instead, the community took the rare opportunity to speak with an authority group and begged these officials that they provide a plan of relief for their health crises.

From the physical pain; lesions, boils, diarrhea, vomiting, severe respiratory conditions, fatigue, and dizziness; to the emotional pain of seeing the beauty and life of their land destroyed and their income lost. Everyday these residents are suffering! If no one steps in to provide access to proper care, the suffering will continue and diseases from exposure will turn life threatening. Gulf-related cases of kidney and respiratory failure are already present. Hodgkin’s lymphoma and leukemia will be on the rise in the next 5-15 years and who knows when the catch will truly be safe again? With declining health and the loss of income, the area will soon slip into poverty.

Dr. Riki Ott, a toxicologist, marine biologist and Exxon Valdez survivor said last October, “It’s clear to me there are four to five million people, from Terrebonne Parish in Louisiana, through the big bend of Florida, who are being exposed to dangerous levels of dangerous chemicals,” yet their voices are rarely heard.

Citizens spoke about their plight during the BP commission meeting; it is important that they are heard. Support them in drawing aid and tell your government that before they let companies continue to carry out such dangerous profiteering, we need acceptable clean-up and support for the mess already made!

~Health Freedoms

“Today I’m talking to you about my life,” Cherri Foytlin told the two commissioners present at the Jan. 12 meeting. “My ethylbenzene levels are 2.5 times the 95th percentile, and there’s a very good chance now that I won’t get to see my grandbabies…What I’m asking you to do now, if possible, is to amend [your report]. Because we have got to get some health care.”

Ethylbenzene is a form of benzene present in the body when it begins to break down. It is also present in BP’s crude oil.

“I have seen small children with lesions all over their bodies,” Foytlin, co-founder of Gulf Change, a community organization based in Grand Isle, Louisiana, continued.

“We are very, very ill. And dead is dead. So it really doesn’t matter if the media comes back… or the president hears us, or… if the oil workers and the fishermen and the crabbers get to feed their babies and maybe have a good Christmas next year… Dead is dead…I know your job is probably already done, but I’d like to hire you if you don’t mind. And God knows I can’t pay you. But I need your heart. And I need your voice.”

Commissioner Frances Beinecke, president of the National Resources Defense Council, vowed to convey her concerns to the White House.

“We hear what you are saying,” said Beinecke. “We will take these health issues and concerns back to the president.”

The commission, appointed by President Barack Obama, released its final report this week after a six-month investigation into the nation’s worst-ever oil disaster.

The report recommended a massive overhaul of the oil industry’s failed safety practices in the Gulf, as well as the creation of a new independent agency to monitor offshore drilling activity.

However, most of the 250 people at the meeting here focused on the health crisis that has exploded in the wake of the April 2010 disaster, leaving former BP clean-up workers and Gulf residents alike suffering from ailments they attribute to chemicals in BP’s oil and the toxic dispersants used to sink it.

Dr. Rodney Soto, a medical doctor in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida, has been testing and treating patients with high levels of oil-related chemicals in their bloodstream.

These are commonly referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Anthropogenic VOCs from BP’s oil disaster are toxic and have negative chronic health effects.

Dr. Soto is finding disconcertingly consistent and high levels of toxic chemicals in every one of the patients he is testing.

“I’m regularly finding between five and seven VOCs in my patients,” Dr. Soto told IPS. “These patients include people not directly involved in the oil clean-up, as well as residents that do not live right on the coast. These are clearly related to the oil disaster.”

Nevertheless, U.S. government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with President Obama himself, have declared the Gulf of Mexico, its waters, beaches, and seafood, safe and open to the public.

Gulf residents at the meeting on Wednesday made sure the two commissioners were aware of the health crisis they are facing.

Tom Costanza of Catholic Charities in the New Orleans area stated that the region is in the middle of a social service crisis and faced a claims process he said is fraught with problems.

“People call me crying and dying,” he said. “They need medical attention and support to get through this.”

Ada McMahon works with Bridge the Gulf Project, a citizen journalism website that highlights stories from Gulf Coast communities about justice and sustainability. She told IPS that “the unmet health issues are the biggest issue, along with residents turned advocates going to meetings of the commission or with [BP oil spill fund administrator Kenneth] Feinberg to tell people about their health problems.”

“People who can afford the 300-dollar blood tests have found alarming rates of chemicals in their bodies, and these people are concerned and doing what they can to speak out,” she said. “But they feel they can’t wait for Congress or Obama to address this, because they need doctors and support now in the communities.”

LaTosha Brown, director of the Gulf Coast Fund for Community Renewal and Ecological Health, which works with 250 community groups, agreed that “the key concern expressed by the community in response to the report is the overwhelming need for access to health care.”

“Over and over, people exposed to crude and dispersants from the drilling disaster told stories of serious health issues – from high levels of ethylbenzyne in their blood, to respiratory ailments and internal bleeding – and expressed an urgent need for access to doctors who have experience treating chemical exposure,” she said.

Stephen Bradberry, executive director of the Alliance Institute, a non-profit that provides community organizing support in the Gulf South, worries that the Gulf Coast Claims Facility is not accepting health claims, thus leaving sick residents unable to work and without any income to pay their medical bills.

“There is bruising and skin lesions, not just with clean-up workers, these are residents not involved in the clean-up,” Bradberry told IPS. “Just yesterday I learned of five people on Grand Isle who passed away…people who did not have health problems prior to this. Nevertheless, there has not been any talk of monitoring of these communities.”

Bradberry, who also attended the forum on Wednesday, also said, “We need a separate health task force that can focus solely on testing, monitoring, and studying the long-term health issues from exposure to crude and dispersants. And this needs to happen now.”

By Dahr Jamail

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/01/14-3

The FDA announced it was beginning the approval process for bio-engineered salmon in August last year. The agency determined the fish are safe for consumption based on research done by the very company selling it, AquaBounty Technologies, who used less than 30 fish in their review process. In response to the announcement, the Center for Food Safety has been leading a broad coalition of consumer activists calling on the FDA to deny its approval and demanding that if the “frankenfish” is to be on the market (despite massive protest), that it be clearly labeled.

Since 1982, when Monsanto first introduced the bovine growth hormone, the agency has claimed that it cannot require a label on GM food unless there are differences in its texture, taste or nutritional component, in comparison to the conventionally grown or raised food.  Following the FDA approval hearing for the salmon, another hearing was held regarding the labeling of the GM product when it potentially comes to market. Jaydee Hanson, Policy Analyst on Cloning and Genetics at the Center for Food Safety, says “The FDA is arguing that this genetic construct is just the same as natural constructs, and therefore it doesn’t need to be labeled because it’s the same thing that we’ve been eating”.

To say that there is no difference in the Aquadvantage salmon that is altered to grow twice as fast than a naturally raised salmon is a bold face lie . “By the company’s own data, this fish has less omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids than regular farmed salmon in worse ratios,” Hanson argued. “It tastes insipid. When you compare ordinary farm salmon to wild salmon, it doesn’t taste as good because it doesn’t have the fats that give the fish that good taste. The genetically modified salmon is not going to taste as good as even regular farm salmon. So basically everything you eat salmon for, it doesn’t have, or it’s got less of than any other kind of salmon.”

Hanson also observed the structural differences of the fish, gleamed from the largest sample size of engineered salmon in the entire study, a group of just 12 animals. That is all that was needed to note obvious issues such as the skeletons poor condition along with a more eroded jaw than those of normal farmed salmon, they also have enlarged gills and their flesh is inflamed. Even still, they say that it’s no different from conventional fish and its safe for human consumption.

It seems preposterous that companies selling adulterated food don’t have to let consumers know; what’s worse is that producers selling non-GMO products aren’t allowed to label their products as such, which leaves consumers in the dark about what they are buying. “Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,” said David Edwards, director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization. “It differentiates products that are not different.  As we stick more labels on products that don’t really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices.”

How degrading! To act as though people shouldn’t be educated or aware of what they consume because it would “confuse” them is an insult to our countries intelligence. What is ironic about their statement is that it comes at a time when US consumers are more interested than ever before to know where their food is coming from and how it is produced. The Post notes that the debate over genetically modified salmon “comes at a time when Americans seem to want to know more about their food – where it is grown, how it is produced and what it contains.” And according to the CFS, “Recent polls indicate that 95% of the public want labeling of genetically-modified foods, and that nearly 50% of the public would not eat seafood that has been genetically engineered.”

Since the FDA can not be relied upon to make the right choice when it comes to keeping consumers safe and educated, and continually disregard the desires of the American public, California is taking action to make sure that anyone buying salmon in their state knows what they’re paying for. California State Assembly member Jared Huffman has introduced a bill that would require all GE salmon sold in the state to be clearly labeled.  Alaska Representatives Bob Miller and Scott Kawaski have also announced that they would be sponsoring similar legislation requiring the labeling of genetically engineered salmon. They will also introduce this year, a second piece of legislation that would prohibit genetically engineered species from being cultivated in Alaskan waters.

Ocean Conservancy’s George Leonard told Slashfood that they support Huffman’s bill and that consumers have a right to know. ”This has implications well beyond salmon. We need a broader debate over genetically engineered fish. Conversations about sustainable seafood are all about more information and more transparency over gear type, species name and more. Whether your fish has been genetically modified or not should be part of that conversation,” says Leonard.

George Kimbrell, senior staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety says that states have the ability to enact local and state level legislation, he anticipates Oregon and Washington states to follow suit with labeling requirements. “Part of this is to prod the federal government to take action to protect our food and the environment,” he says.

Aquabounty and the fishing industry wait with bated breath for the FDA to reach their final decisions on approval and labeling; the agency has stated there’s no timeline in place for issuing a final decision. Even still, West Coast director of CFS, Rebecca Spector says “We don’t think it’s premature,” We want to send a message to the FDA that Californians don’t want bioengineered salmon, or at least want it to be labeled.”

~Health Freedoms

Dissatisfied with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current review of the first-ever proposed commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) salmon, Today [January 6], California State Assemblymember Jared Huffman introduced an Assembly Bill (AB 88) which would require that all GE salmon sold in California contain clear and prominent labeling.  The Center for Food Safety (CFS), a co-sponsor of the bill, applauds Assemblymember Huffman for protecting the public’s right to know how their food is produced by drafting this important piece of food safety legislation.

“The federal agency charged with protecting our food supply is failing us yet again,” said Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety. “Consumers have the right to know that the food they consume and feed their families is safe.  Until FDA does an adequate environmental and human health review of genetically engineered salmon, it is up to individual states to protect consumers and their families.  The Assemblymember’s proposed bill will protect Californians through labeling, which restores consumer confidence and choice.”

Public opinion clearly and consistently calls for food labeling.  Recent polls indicate that 95% of the public want labeling of genetically-modified foods, and that nearly 50% of the public would not eat seafood that has been genetically engineered.

The Center for Food Safety recently called on the FDA to recognize the immense public outcry for mandatory labeling of untested, unapproved transgenic salmon. CFS led a broad coalition of consumer, environmental, religious and animal welfare groups, along with commercial and recreational fisheries associations and food retailers, grocers and chefs in demanding the FDA deny approval of the long-shelved AquaBounty transgenic salmon and require mandatory labeling of the fish is approved despite intense opposition. If approved the transgenic salmon would be the first genetically engineered animal intended for human consumption.

“Consumers sent a clear message to FDA that they do not want to eat genetically engineered salmon and should FDA decide to move forward despite overwhelming opposition it must be labeled,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety. November 22^nd marked the end of a two month public comment period on the labeling of GE salmon.  Nearly 400,000 public comments have been sent to FDA, demanding the agency reject this application and require mandatory labeling of this transgenic salmon should it decide to approve it.

By: Heather- Center For Food Safety

http://ge-fish.org/2011/01/06/in-wake-of-pending-fda-approval-of-ge-salmon-california-bill-could-restore-americans%E2%80%99-right-to-choose-in-the-marketplace/#more-327

Sources:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/genetically-modified-salmon-has-less-nutritional-value

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/fda-labeled-free-modification/

http://www.slashfood.com/2011/01/07/lawmakers-tackle-genetically-modified-salmon/#ixzz1CgDJ80lf

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/bioengineered-salmon-california-bill-seeks-clear-label/

The struggle to feed the world has created frustration with its failure for the ones who are hungry and especially because we live in a time where food production is at its highest. Government and big-industries have been trying to make factory farming and GMOs the answer to world hunger. But as time goes on, the futility and damage from their efforts is painfully clear. According to the Worldwatch Institute’s “2011 State of the World” report, it’s time for “big” farms and engineered foods to step aside and give way to small-scale farming.

Instead of depending on large crop there could be a focus on diversity of seeds, growing food in smaller spaces, and encouraging native food production. It would put the power for these communities to feed themselves into their own hands. Recently, there has been a successful, steady incline in non-profit organizations that create sustainable farming practices in under-developed areas. With hope, this report, assistance, technology, and science will direct more attention to providing people the tools they need to survive instead of pushing the profiteering agenda of big-industry and patented seeds. By furthering education and working with the local environment, communities and countries would be able to achieve their own food production instead of relying on continued assistance.

An old adage rings uncannily true; “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” America likes to give and help, but usually in a way that breeds reliance instead of fostering independence and sustainability. The most precious resource we should export to feed the world is knowledge, not just food.

~Health Freedoms

The Worldwatch Institute’s “2011 State of the World” report identifies small-scale farming as the primary solution for world hunger. The report finds fault with the one-size-fits-all approach that has been used to address food shortages. A primary concern is the focus on seeds, à la Monsanto, and the limited crop varieties that result, instead of rebuilding and enriching soils and aquifers. It describes Agribusiness seeds as representing the focus on short-term payoffs. Nourishing the soils and waters that feed the seeds are long-term investments with genuinely big returns.

Though the Worldwatch Institute studiously avoids the term “factory farming”, there can be little doubt that it’s condemned by the report. Here is how they see the basis of the hunger problem:

The context, and the basis of Worldwatch’s Nourishing the Planet project, was this: Agriculture has come to a crossroads. Nearly a half-century after the Green Revolution, a major share of the human family is still chronically hungry. In addition, much of that revolution’s gains have been achieved through highly intensive agriculture that depends heavily on fossil fuels for inputs and energy—and the question of whether the world’s croplands can yield more food is being trumped by the question of whether they can do so without compromise to the soils, fresh water, and crop diversity the world depends on.

The methods currently being used by Agribusiness are destructive and inefficient. They have resulted in dramatic loss of diversity, destruction and loss of soil and water, and more hungry people than ever. The industrialization of agriculture, the so-called Green Revolution, has failed. Worse, it is leading us into an environmentally devastated landscape that is unable to support adequate food production.

Because Africa is home to the largest percentage of malnourished people, the study’s authors went to 25 sub-Saharan nations to investigate for two years. They found that “the continent is becoming a rich and diverse breeding ground for innovations in agriculture that support farmer income and nourishment for people at the same time.” Unstated, but clearly implied, is their inability to fully utilize their methods because of the misfocus on Agribusiness methods.

The concept of scale, so dear to Agribusiness, is turned on its ear in the report. The huge array of creative means for increasing output, improving soil and water conservation, and solving problems that small farmers were using in Africa could be “…scaled up to bring food to the tables of not one farmer but 100 million or more, as well as to the consumers who depend on them, [and that] could change the entire global food system.”

It is the “one-size-fits-all” approach that is so crippling to food production. The report is quite clear. “There is no single solution.”

…because attention has been focused relatively narrowly—on a few types of crops, on a few technologies—entire regions and ecosystems, not to mention myriad varieties of crops and rural ways of life, have been ignored.

They offer three basic suggestions to deal with hunger:

• Go beyond seeds: Focusing on only a few crops, like corn, wheat, and soy, and developing new seeds of those few species, needs to be left behind as a means of resolving hunger. The primary beneficiaries of this approach are companies like Monsanto, which reap enormous short-term profits at the expense of soils, water, production, and diversity.
• Go beyond farms: A great deal of the problem in bringing food to people is loss after harvest. Losses from pests, mold, and waste are immense. Growing foods inside cities, such as on rooftops, can ease hunger. In some areas, only indigenous and wild crops are viable. Rather than ignoring them, they should be preserved and encouraged.
• Go beyond Africa: The food distribution system as a whole needs to be examined. Relief to poor countries is often provided by Agribusiness in the United States, leaving local producers unable to compete with the low prices. The short-term benefit in bellies filled is overturned by the long-term harm to local food production by making people dependent on external sources of nutrition. Relief work should focus on providing food through local production, rather than shipping from areas where Agribusiness is entrenched.Europe has started to address this issue with the World Food Programme. They are buying locally and providing training that can help farmers compete globally.

The negative effects of Agribusiness are felt in the countries of origin, not only in the hunger of poor nations. Dead zones are found in the oceans where rivers surrounded by factory farms drain. Obesity results from the poor quality of foods produced by the system. Pollution of aquifers and huge areas around massive food production sites are destroying the environment and causing severe illnesses. The reality is that the for-profit food system harms everyone, no matter what their locations. Whether it’s by starvation from lack of food, or chronic disease from poor quality food, or poisoning from pollution, almost everyone suffers.

The Worldwatch report concludes with the relatively mild statement:

Given the limited ability of scientists to find solutions, the finite generosity of donors to support agricultural research, and the overstretched patience of struggling farmers and hungry families, shifting funds and attention in new directions is long overdue.

Ultimately the entire earth suffers as the soils deteriorate and disappear, as pollution and poisons destroy wildlife and diversity, and as clean water is destroyed. The Green Revolution has resulted in an unsustainable system of agriculture that benefits only a few as it rapes and destroys the earth.

By: Heidi Stevenson

Sources:

http://www.gaia-health.com/articles351/000384-end-world-hunger-end-factory-farms.shtml

We all know that the human body is nothing to be meddled with, pardon my pun, and we all know that metals such as lead or mercury are poisonous. It would seemingly be common sense then that such poisons are kept out of our bodies, yet all over the world people have mercury directly adhered to their teeth by dentists to fill holes left after drilling cavities. Having trusted that the FDA and medical care providers wouldn’t put them in harms way, many now suffer from mercury poisoning due to amalgams.

In December the FDA held a two day hearing to evaluate the safety of amalgams during which the agencies own scientists urged that the use of amalgams in children, pregnant women and those who may be hypersensitive be stopped immediately. Why stop at children though? Most anything that can poison a child can also poison an adult. Whatever age, we are made of the same physiological structures, and poison is poison.

Amalgam fillings contain approximately 50% mercury, 30% copper, 14% each of tin and silver, and 1% zinc.  All five of these metals are toxic and when they react they form 16 more toxic corrosion products. The EPA safety limits for mercury vapor exposure is 0.01 mg per day but numerous studies have shown that mercury fillings release up to 0.029 mg per day, nearly 3 times higher than the limit. Vapor exposure is highest when the amalgams are being placed or removed, but as long a person has them, they will be inhaling mercury 24 hours a day. The mercury vapor by the amalgam increases every time they chew anything, are exposed to hot liquid, or whenever they are brushed.

Exposure to mercury will effect kidney function and cause brain dysfunction, reproductive disorders and birth defects; like x-rays and other heavy metals, it causes damage to the lining of arteries. More than 100 million amalgam fillings are placed in the United States every year and the metal composites are not even effective in creating a healthier mouth half the time. Dr. Gary Schumacher, a dentist and chief of clinical research at the ADA Health Foundation’s Paffenbarger Research Center referred to amalgam fillings as “probably the biggest problem facing most dentists today”. He estimates that more then half of the fillings done cause a secondary tooth decay.

The major findings of the national poll are as follows:

After reviewing the available scientific studies and the presentations of researchers, experts, dentists and injured consumers, the scientists concluded that – contrary to the claims of the FDA’s in-house dentist Susan Runner – amalgam is not safe for everybody. According to the panel, the FDA’s amalgam risk assessments were not adequate to protect hypersensitive adults, children and unborn babies. Repeatedly, panel members expressed their concern about amalgam use in children. Pediatric neurologist Dr. Suresh Kotagal of the Mayo Clinic summed it up for the entire panel: “There is really no place for mercury in children.” Other panelists went on to explain that dental mercury is like lead. The panel urged the FDA to quickly contraindicate amalgam for these vulnerable populations and insisted that the FDA provide consumers with labeling containing clear warnings.

The press heard the scientists loud and clear. According to the well-respected trade publication FDA Webview , the panelists “suggested the agency should ban the device’s use in children and pregnant women.” Reuters announced that “Use of fillings in kids, pregnant women biggest concern…Enough uncertainty surrounds silver-colored metal dental fillings with mercury that U.S. regulators should add more cautions for dentists and patients, a U.S. advisory panel said.”

At the end of the hearing, presiding FDA official Anthony Watson, Director of the Division of Dental Devices, announced that the FDA would act quickly in response to concerns raised by the panel. But already the FDA is ignoring the scientists. The FDA’s official summary [PDF] of the hearings reads like the American Dental Association press release that was issued the day before, simply noting that more research is needed. The summary does not even mention the scientists’ vocal cry for contraindications and restrictions to protect vulnerable populations. And even though panelists insisted that the FDA has a responsibility to provide clear labeling for consumers, the summary twists their comments to absolve the FDA of all responsibility – it claims that the panel only suggested the need for informed consent within the dentist-patient relationship.

We cannot let the FDA get away with rewriting history and ignoring the scientists as it has done so many times before. Please write Anthony Watson at anthony.watson@fda.hhs.gov .

Tell Mr. Watson of the FDA:

• Since the FDA’s own panel of scientists advise that amalgam should “definitely not” be implanted in children, pregnant women and hypersensitive people, how soon will you take action to protect these vulnerable populations from this toxin?
• Since the FDA has a duty to tell consumers that amalgam contains mercury that can damage the neurological systems of unborn babies, children and hypersensitive populations, when does the FDA intend to clearly state this warning on its consumer website and in consumer labeling?
• Since Commissioner Hamburg claims the FDA is committed to transparency, how does the FDA plan to keep the public updated on its progress with regard to the amalgam issue?

Thank you to all who came out to testify at the hearings, participated in the demonstration and submitted comments to the FDA! We’ve gotten this far, let’s keep it up.

Charlie

Charles G. Brown
National Counsel, Consumers for Dental Choice
President, World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry
316 F St., Suite 210
Washington DC 20002
202-544-6333

Note: Since receiving this email, we heard further news from Charlie:

Joshua Sharfstein, the FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner who approved the abysmal amalgam rule after Commissioner Margaret Hamburg claimed to be recused, has resigned. Sharfstein’s exit allows new FDA leadership to take a fresh look at amalgam, and we will continue to hold their feet to the fire.

http://www.wellsphere.com/dental-health-article/fda-scientific-panel-urges-fda-to-stop-amalgam-use-in-vulnerable-populations-8211-will-fda-listen/1322504

As if flouride and hexavalent chromium in public water supplies aren’t bad enough, health authorities are now pushing for the addition of drug statins as well. Drug companies claim that statins will lower cholesterol and prevent heart attacks and strokes, but researchers have proven that the drugs only benefit a quarter of people taking them. There are some very troubling side-effects, especially if there is no history of heart problems.

A new study by the Cochrane Library is highlighted in the following article. Their review of statin trials found symptoms of “short-term memory loss, depression and mood swings,” that were purposely minimized by the drug companies funding the research. Statins have also been linked to a greater risk of liver dysfunction, acute kidney failure, cataracts and muscle damage.

The pharmaceutical companies’ powers are overflowing; we can actually see their influence trickling into federal health administration, down into municipalities, and flushing into our local water treatment centers

~Health Freedoms

Health authorities are pushing for drugs to be added to public water supplies that cause depression and memory loss, as a new study shows that the dangers of statins have been deliberately underplayed by drug companies, in a chilling throwback to how the population in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World were mass medicated with Soma to keep them docile and easy to control.

Statins are taken by tens of millions of people worldwide, a boon for drug companies like Merck, whose chief executive Henry Gadsden back in 1975 dreamed of being able to sell a drug to people who had no immediately identifiable illness, or as Mike Adams writes, “They needed a way to sell drugs to healthy people.” Statins were born and the financial windfall for Big Pharma quickly followed.

Drug companies claim that statins have been proven to lower cholesterol and help prevent heart disease and strokes, leading many health experts to insist that they be artificially added to public water supplies, but dangerous side-effects buried by drug companies conducting statin trials have now come to light, in addition to the fact that “for three quarters of those taking them, they offer little or no value.”

A new study published in the Cochrane Library, which reviews drug trials, examined data from 14 drugs trials involving 34,000 patients and found evidence of “short-term memory loss, depression and mood swings,” that had been deliberately underplayed by the drug companies funding the research.

The researchers warn that, “Statins should only be prescribed to those with heart disease, or who have suffered the condition in the past. Researchers warn that unless a patient is at high risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke, statins may cause more harm than good.”

However, despite the fact that statins have also been linked to a greater risk of liver dysfunction, acute kidney failure, cataracts and muscle damage, health authorities have been pushing for the drug to be added to public water supplies as part of a mass medication program that is not only illegal without consent, but also threatens a plethora of unknown consequences.

Only last week, George Lundberg, MD, the editor of MedPageToday, which is a mouthpiece for the American Medical Association, wrote an op-ed entitled, Should We Put Statins in the Water Supply?

In May 2008, renowned cardiologist Professor Mahendra Varma called for statins to be artificially added to drinking water.

Putting statins in the water supply was also considered during a November 2008 discussionwhich featured Robert Bonow, M.D., of Northwestern University in Chicago, Gordon F. Tomaselli, M.D., of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and Anthony De Maria, M.D., of the University of California at San Diego.

Also in November 2008, CNBC aired a segment lauding the effectiveness of statins, after which one of the hosts remarked, “Why don’t they just put statins in the water supply,” to which CNBC’s medical expert replied, “A lot of people have said that and they are in the water in fact.”

The idea of adding drugs to the water supply to biochemically manipulate the thoughts and emotions of populations has gone from the realm of science fiction in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where people were mass medicated with Soma to keep them docile and easy to control, to an imminent reality.

Indeed, during a March 20, 1962 Berkeley University speech, Huxley spoke of how humans would be made to “love their servitude” via the state-sponsored introduction of mind-altering drugs.

“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution,” said Huxley.

In a 2008 paper titled, “Fluoride and the Future: Population Level Cognitive Enhancement,” Oxford professor Julian Savulescu explored how populations of the future could be mass-medicated through pharmacological “cognitive enhancements” added to the water supply.

In December 2009, we reported on how Japanese health authorities were considering adding trace amounts of lithium to public water supplies as a “mood stabilizer” in a bid to lower the suicide rate. Fox News medical expert Dr. Archelle Georgiou gave the concept tacit approval when she labeled the study an “interesting concept” and refused to even mention the moral aspects of mass drugging people against their will.

In his 1977 book Ecoscience, current White House science czar John P. Holdren also advocated adding sterilant drugs to the water supply as part of a program of “involuntary fertility control”.

Of course, a huge number of Americans are already being mass medicated against their will, from which one of a myriad of debilitating health effects includes lowered IQ and increased docility. Indeed, as Joseph Borkin documented in his book The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben, the first occurrence of artificially fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps. The Nazis explained that the reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize women and coerce the victims of their concentration camps into calm submission.

By: Paul Joseph Watson

http://www.infowars.com/health-authorities-want-depression-causing-drugs-added-to-water-supply/

The push to switch over to Compact Florescent Light (CFL) bulbs is facing a mighty backlash from consumers, health experts and environmentalists. As part of the governments “Green Revolution” campaign, Congress has passed legislation that requires the ‘energy-saving’ CFL’s to replace incandescent light bulbs completely by 2014.

From asthma medications to antipsychotics, children are a big market for the pharmaceutical industry and they are making a killing as now one in four children is taking medication regularly.  That is an incredible figure and one that calls for immediate attention, especially in the wake of reports that show 84% of doctors have ties with pharmaceutical companies, pushing pills for perks (The Pusher Men-How Some Doctors In America Profit Off Of The Drugs They Push).

“To put this trend in perspective, an earlier study that appeared in the journal, Pediatrics revealed that eight percent of pediatricians felt they had adequate training in prescribing antidepressants, 16 percent felt comfortable prescribing them, but 72 percent actually did.” (Huffington Post) So what are they doing prescribing all these pills? Certainly not contributing to the health of many of these children, putting developing minds in harms way with drugs that can cause a host of negative issues including driving a troubled mind to more violence against themselves or others.

Parents have been trusting this agenda of medicating children along with schools that seek to keep problem youths quiet.  Instead of doctors seeking to treat the root of these kids issues, they put an albuteral band-aid on asthma and a ritalin leash on hyperactive children. This trend is not the answer, doctors need to stop perpetuating this pharmaceutical onslaught and parents and schools need to demand focus on offering real health and behavioral reform through nutrition and behavioral education.

~Health Freedoms

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that a study of prescription patterns in 2009, conducted by IMS Health, showed that 25 percent of children in the U.S. were on regular medication.

IMS Health is a firm that provides marketing intelligence to pharmaceutical companies. The firm’s job is to keep the $800 billion per year global pharmaceutical industry on a continued pattern of growth. Hopefully these consultants accomplished something quite different this week. Hopefully they provided our citizens with an overdue wake-up call.

One in four children in the U.S. are on chronic prescription medications. This doesn’t even include all the prescriptions we write to treat acute illness, or the use of over-the-counter products. It is an astounding number. We either have the sickest pediatric population in the world, or there is something very wrong with the way therapies are driven in our health care system.

The WSJ article goes on to discuss some very significant concerns about the situation — like how difficult it is to run clinical studies on children, and how much of our pharmaceutical data — including dosing and side effects — is drawn from adult populations and applied to children (fingers crossed!) These are serious concerns to be sure, but it’s a modern version of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Those of us on the sideline are worrying if the emperor’s hat clashes with his shoes, when what we should really be paying attention to — and shouting about — is the fact that good lord, he’s naked!

One in four children in the U.S. are on chronic medications!

According to IMS Health data, 45 million children are on asthma medications, 24 million are on ADHD medications, almost 10 million are on antidepressants with another six and a half million on other antipsychotics. Then there are the antihypertensives, the sleep aids, the medications for Type 2 diabetes and high cholesterol, and on and on.

Are the conditions these medications are designed for, like ADHD and bipolar disorders, real? Absolutely. Are our diagnostic criteria usually clear and well established? No.

Is the scientific information that doctors rely on for diagnosis and treatment free of bias and conflict of interest? Absolutely not.

Do our third party insurers reimburse physicians and psychologists in such a manner that mood disorders, attentional problems and other conditions in the psychoeducational realm are likely to be evaluated and managed by the most appropriate professionals? Again, more often than not, no.

Some of these children are certainly benefiting from long term medication. Optimal asthma control, for instance, can be life changing for a child. Depression is real and needs to be treated seriously. But over the broad range of approximately 100 million children taking daily medication in this country, have we consistently formulated long range goals and benefits?

Do we understand the longterm effectiveness of these medications compared to meaningful nonpharmaceutical intervention? No.

No. Absolutely not. No. No!

Our system of private, fee-for-service insurance is basically a business model that focuses on the top of the health care pyramid (the doctor) and pays for quick fixes (prescriptions) with immediately observable (short term) results. That works great for bacterial pneumonia; not so much for a kid bouncing off the walls, or gaining too much weight, or who is sad. Nowhere is this disconnect more glaring than in the realm of mental health.

Health insurance companies have determined, by virtue of their reimbursement strategies, that the work of treating serious mental illness would shift to primary care providers. A recent study by the AAP predicts that treatment of mental illness and mood disorders will soon make up 30-40 percent of a pediatrician’s office practice (1).

To put this trend in perspective, an earlier study that appeared in the journal Pediatrics revealed that 8 percent of pediatricians felt they had adequate training in prescribing antidepressants, 16 percent felt comfortable prescribing them, but 72 percent actually did.

Well of course they did. If they don’t, who will? This is just one example of the growing disconnect between best medical practice and the way we deliver health care.

Furthermore, where do both pediatricians and psychiatrists get most of their information about these psychotropic medications that are flying off prescription pads? The pharmaceutical companies that produce them, through the hundreds of millions of dollars they spend each year on marketing and the clinical studies they fund. Health insurers and pharmaceutical companies are not necessarily the bad guys here. They are doing what we have tasked them to do: run a business.

What should be driving our health care? Should it be evidenced-based medical science, wrapped up in a little common sense and kept at a distance from special interest? Should the emphasis be on clinical effectiveness rather than customer service (I’d like my hip replacement next week, thank you very much)? Should the financial incentives foster improved longterm health for all of us rather than healthy quarterly profits? If that’s what we want then we need to redesign the system from the bottom up.

In order to frame meaningful health care debate in this country, we have to look at the consequences of doing business-as-usual. This data from the pharmaceutical industry illustrating the degree to which to we medicate our children underscores the ways our health care system has gone off track. We need to acknowledge that naked truth.

One in four children in the U.S. are on chronic medications.

By: Maggie Kozel, M.D. is the author of “The Color of Atmosphere

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maggie-kozel-md/childrens-health-care_b_803167.html

References:
1. AAP department of Community and Specialty Pediatrics. “Resources Help Primary Care Clinicians Address Mental Health Concerns.” AAP News 31 (7) 34

2. Jerry L. Rushton, et al. “Pediatrician and Family Physician Prescription of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors.” Pediatrics 105 (6): e82

Sustainable-agriculture training offers this county a new generation of capable and knowledgeable organic farmers. It also offers an opportunity to soldiers returning from war to have a new lease on life as their attention turns from the stress of military duties to growth and the pride of providing. With programs such as this, those who are returning from service can truly ‘beat their swords into plowshares’.                                    

~Health Freedoms

VALLEY CENTER, Calif. — On an organic farm here in avocado country, a group of young Marines, veterans and Army reservists listened intently to an old hand from the front lines.

“Think of it in military terms,” he told the young recruits, some just back from Iraq or Afghanistan. “It’s a matter of survival, an uphill battle. You have to think everything is against you and hope to stay alive.”

The battle in question was not the typical ground assault, but organic farming — how to identify beneficial insects, for instance, or to prevent stray frogs from clogging an irrigation system. It was Day 2 of a novel boot camp for veterans and active-duty military personnel, including Marines from nearby Camp Pendleton, who might be interested in new careers as farmers.

“In the military, grunts are the guys who get dirty, do the work and are generally underappreciated,” said Colin Archipley, a decorated Marine Corps infantry sergeant turned organic farmer, who developed the program with his wife Karen, after his three tours in Iraq. “I think farmers are the same.”

At their farm, called Archi’s Acres, the sound of crickets and croaking frogs communes with the drone of choppers. The syllabus, approved by Camp Pendleton’s transition assistance program, includes hands-on planting and irrigating, lectures about “high-value niche markets” and production of a business plan that is assessed by food professionals and business professors.

Along with Combat Boots to Cowboy Boots, a new program for veterans at the University of Nebraska’s College of Technical Agriculture, and farming fellowships for wounded soldiers, the six-week course offered here is part of a nascent “veteran-centric” farming movement. Its goal is to bring the energy of young soldiers re-entering civilian life to the aging farm population of rural America. Half of all farmers are likely to retire in the next decade, according to the  Department of Agriculture.

“The military is not for the faint of heart, and farming isn’t either,” said Michael O’Gorman, an organic farmer who founded the nonprofit Farmer-Veteran Coalition, which supports sustainable-agriculture training. “There are eight times as many farmers over age 65 as under. There is a tremendous need for young farmers, and a big wave of young people inspired to go into the service who are coming home.”

About 45 percent of the military comes from rural communities, compared with one-sixth of the total population, according to the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire. In 2009, the Department of Agriculture began offering low-interest loans in its campaign to add 100,000 farmers to the nation’s ranks each year.

Among them will probably be Sgt. Matt Holzmann, 33, a Marine at Camp Pendleton who spent seven months in Afghanistan. He did counterinsurgency work and tried to introduce aquaponics, a self-replenishing agricultural system, to rural villages.

His zeal for aquaponics led him to the farming class. “It’s a national security issue,” he said the other day outside a garage-turned-classroom filled with boxes of Dr. Earth Kelp Meal. “The more responsibly we use water and energy, the greater it is for our country.”

Mr. O’Gorman, a pacifist and a pioneer of the baby-lettuce business, started the coalition after his son joined the Coast Guard. The group recently received a grant from the Bob Woodruff Foundation, co-founded by the ABC News journalist who was wounded in Iraq, to provide farming fellowships for wounded young veterans.

“Beginning farming has become the cause du jour among young people with college degrees and trust funds,” Mr. O’Gorman said at the farm, where there were stacks of Mother Earth News magazines in the bathroom and a batch of fresh kale in the sink. “My gut sense is a lot of them won’t be farming five years from now. But these vets will.”

Mr. Archipley’s own journey into organic farming was somewhat serendipitous. He joined the Marines in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and married between his second and third tours in Iraq. The couple bought three acres of avocado orchards north of San Diego.

Mr. Archipley, whose looks bring to mind a surfer dude, found pleasure tending his grove after leaving the Marines and eventually secured a loan from the Department of Agriculture to build a greenhouse. His farm now sells organic produce to Whole Foods Markets in San Diego and Los Angeles.

In 2007, the couple started training veterans informally, financing the effort themselves. The new course, administered through MiraCosta College costs $4,500, with Camp Pendleton offering assistance for active-duty Marines.

Farming offers veterans a chance to decompress, Mr. Archipley said, but more important, provides a sense of purpose. “It allows them to be physically active, be part of a unit,” he said. “It gives them a mission statement — a responsibility to the consumer eating their food.”

Even in this idyllic setting, it can be a challenging process. Mike Nelson Hanes, now 34, enlisted in the Marines at 18. In 1994, six days into his basic training in South Carolina, his drill instructor committed suicide with an M-16 rifle in front of 59 recruits.

“He blew his head off,” Mr. Hanes said. “That was right from the get-go, at age 18.”

In Baghdad, Mr. Hanes served as a .50-caliber machine gunner atop a Humvee. “I was the one they were trying to kill,” he said. He returned home with post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and a traumatic brain injury. He was homeless for over a year, managing nevertheless to get a degree in environmental social services.

“Being outside was my comfort zone — still is,” he said. Two years ago, he stumbled upon the Archipleys’ “Veterans for Sustainable Agriculture” booth at an Earth Day festival in Balboa Park in San Diego. Mr. Hanes still struggles but is gaining ground.

“One thing I’ve noticed about agriculture is that you become a creator rather than a destroyer,” he said amid ornamental eucalyptus shrubs.

John Maki, Camp Pendleton’s transition assistance program specialist, said the life experiences of young veterans equip them for demanding work. “For a comparable age, you won’t find people who have had as much responsibility,” he said. “They’ve been tasked with making life-and-death decisions.”

Weldon Sleight, dean of the University of Nebraska’s College of Technical Agriculture, which has six enrolled veterans, said discipline — a mainstay of the armed forces — was critically important in agriculture. “A lot of these rural vets have this wonderful knowledge base about agriculture,” he added. “But we’ve told them for years there’s no future in it.”

In Central Florida, Adam Burke, who left farming to join the military, came full circle, designing a wheelchair-accessible farm in which his signature “red, white and blueberries” grow in containers on elevated beds.

Mr. Burke, a Purple Heart recipient who suffered a traumatic brain injury in Iraq, recently opened a second farm. “Squeezing a ball in physical therapy gets monotonous,” he said. “And you don’t get the mist from the sprinklers or a cool breeze in a psychologist’s office.”

Matthew McCue, 29, formerly Sergeant McCue, runs Shooting Star CSA outside San Francisco with his partner Lily Schneider, delivering boxes of organic produce directly to consumers.

He recalled how orchard farmers in Iraq pridefully shared their pomegranates, tomatoes and melons.

“You learn how to face death,” he said of his service in Iraq. But in farming, he learned, “There was life all around.”

By PATRICIA LEIGH BROWN

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/us/06vets.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp