Archive

Archive for December 23rd, 2009

The Engadget Show – 004: The decade in gadgets, with special guest Peter Rojas!

December 23rd, 2009 admin No comments

What a crazy 10 years, right guys? It’s really flown past; the highs, the lows, the stuff in the middle that didn’t seem very impressive one way or another. For our final Engadget Show of the decade, we asked site founder Peter Rojas to join us for a look back at our picks for the most important and / or interesting gadget developments since 2000. A hardcore crowd came out just after a gigantic snowstorm to witness the proceedings, and now you get your chance to see how it all went down. This is a long one folks, so grab some popcorn and settle in for the show!

Note: The HD download below is on its way, so hold tight. The iPhone / iPod version and RSS versions are all fine.

Hosts: Joshua Topolsky, Paul Miller, Nilay Patel
Special guest: Peter Rojas
Produced and Directed by: Chad Mumm
Executive Producer: Josh Fruhlinger
Edited by: Tony Chen
Music by: Bubblyfish
Visuals by: CJ
Opening titles by: Julien Nantiec

Download the Show: The Engadget Show – 004 (HD) / The Engadget Show – 004 (iPod / iPhone / Zune formatted)

Subscribe to the Show:

[iTunes] Subscribe to the Show directly in iTunes (M4V).
[Zune] Subscribe to the Show directly in the Zune Marketplace (M4V).
[RSS M4V] Add the Engadget Show feed (M4V) to your RSS aggregator and have it delivered automatically.

Continue reading The Engadget Show – 004: The decade in gadgets, with special guest Peter Rojas!

The Engadget Show – 004: The decade in gadgets, with special guest Peter Rojas! originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:15:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |   | Email this | Comments

Categories: Electronics, Technology Tags: , , , ,

Asus Eee PC T101MT revealed by the FCC

December 23rd, 2009 admin No comments
Asus’ Eee PC T101 convertible tablet has been floating around in one form or another for quite a while now, but it looks like it’s now finally cleared the FCC as the Eee PC T101MT, which seems to suggest that it might just be getting official at CES next month. While details on this particular model are pretty light, the FCC filing does confirm that it packs 802.11b/g/n WiFi, and the “MT” in the model name likely indicates that this one’s a multitouch tablet — the Eee PC T101 that we’ve seen previously was a 10-inch tablet with the usual unremarkable netbook specs, but an upgrade to Pine Trail seems a safe bet for this model.

Asus Eee PC T101MT revealed by the FCC originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:04:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink Netbook Italia  |  sourceFCC  | Email this | Comments

Categories: Electronics, Technology Tags: , ,

Apple planning event for January, with high-res iPhone or small-sized tablet in tow? Maybe just hanging out?

December 23rd, 2009 admin No comments

Breaking news, everybody: Apple’s working on some stuff. The rumors are flying in all directions today, starting out fairly innocently with word from the oft-innacurate DigiTimes of an iPhone-destined 5 megapixel camera sensor. Piper Jaffray’s Gene Munster piled on with an investor note saying they’re giving an Apple January event a 75% chance of happening, and the tablet is squarely at 50 / 50. The most interesting word, however, comes out of the Silicon Alley Insider, who is quoting a “plugged-in source in the mobile industry” who says that Apple is working with some select app makers on prepping high-res apps to demo on a “new, larger mobile device.” The device would be shown in January but not available at that time — presumably in wait for these redesigned apps to mature (at WWDC, perhaps?). While that rumor is being piled in with the ever-present tablet hubbub, if we were to read between the lines we’d say it sounds more like a higher-resolution iPhone in the style of Google’s Nexus one or Motorola’s Droid — both of which are making the iPhone’s 320 x 480 screen look a tad archaic. Certainly more likely than Apple releasing “several tablets” to match up with all the disparate rumors we’ve seen of the 7-inch / 9-inch / 10-inch unicorn device.

Apple planning event for January, with high-res iPhone or small-sized tablet in tow? Maybe just hanging out? originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:31:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink Gizmodo, Pocket-lint  |  sourceAppleInsider, Silicon Valley Insider, DigiTimes  | Email this | Comments

Categories: Electronics, Technology Tags: , , ,

Samuel S. Epstein: American Publlic Health Association Supports Ban On Milk And Meat

December 23rd, 2009 admin No comments

The Cancer Prevention Coalition is pleased to announce that the Governing Council of the American Public Health Association has voted to oppose the continued sale and use of genetically engineered hormonal rBGH milk, and also meat adulterated with sex hormones. This decision is based on long-standing scientific and public policy information developed and published by the Cancer Prevention Coalition over the last two decades, as summarized below.

rBGH MILK
This hormone is injected in about 20 percent of U.S. dairy cows to increase milk production. While the industry claims that the hormone is safe for cows, and that the milk is safe for consumers, this is blatantly false.

  • rBGH makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 toxic veterinary effects, including mastitis, on the label of Posilac (rBGH,) which is injected in cows to increase milk production. Monsanto’s Posilac product was acquired by Eli Lilly in 2008.
  • rBGH milk is contaminated by pus, due to mastitis, an udder infection commonly induced by the hormone, and also by antibiotics used to treat the mastitis.
  • rBGH milk is chemically and nutritionally different than natural milk.
  • Milk from cows injected with rBGH is contaminated with the hormone, traces of which are absorbed through the gut into the blood of people who consume this milk or its products.
  • rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of the natural growth factor (IGF-1), which is readily absorbed through the gut.
  • Excess levels of IGF-1 have been incriminated in well-documented scientific publications by the Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition as causes of breast, colon, and prostate cancers. Additionally, IGF-1 blocks natural defense mechanisms against early submicroscopic cancers.

Cancer Prevention Coalition Chairman Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. says, “These warnings, and related information were updated in my 2006 book, What’s in Your Milk (TRAFFORD Publishing) supported by over 320 references, and endorsed by Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director, Institute for Responsible Technology, and by Dr. Quentin Young, Past President American Public Health Association.”

Warnings by the Cancer Prevention Coalition of these risks in 1990 have been endorsed by the National Family Farm Coalition, representing 30 organizations, and also by the Campaign Against rBS, representing 10 organizations.

A 2007 Cancer Prevention Coalition petition to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “Seeking Withdrawal of the New Animal Drug application for rBST,” was endorsed by the Organic Consumers Association, Farm Defenders, and the Institute for Responsible Technology. However, the FDA failed to responded to or act on this petition. This petition was endorsed by the Organic Consumers Association, the Family Farm Defenders, and the Institute for Responsible Technology.

Furthermore, the FDA has remained indifferent to these risks, in spite of longstanding Congressional concerns. Illustrative is the 1986 Congressional report, “Human Food Safety and Regulation of Animal Drugs,” by the House Committee on Government Operations. This report concluded that the “FDA has consistently disregarded its responsibility… has repeatedly put what it perceives are interests of veterinarians and the livestock industry ahead of its legal obligations to protect consumers – jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers of meat and milk.”

Of particular concern are risks to infants and children in view of their high susceptibility to cancer-causing ingredients in consumer products.

These risks are readily avoidable by consuming organic milk. According to The Hartman Group, a prominent Seattle consulting firm, organic milk is now among the first organic product that consumers buy. Organic milk is becoming increasingly available, with an annual growth rate of about 20 percent, while overall milk consumption is dropping by 10 percent.

Nevertheless, only a few schools make organic milk available, nor do most state governments, under low-income food programs, particularly by the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.”

Wal-Mart is now the biggest seller of certified organic milk, followed by Horizon Organic, owned by Dean Foods, the nation’s largest dairy producer, and by Groupe Danone, the leading French dairy company. While growth in this market is still held back by the higher price of organic milk, this problem is likely to be resolved by Wal-Mart’s competitive pricing.

In sharp contrast to the United States, the European Union nations, as well as Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand, Japan, and Canada, all have banned the use and imports of hormonal milk and dairy products.

This information was recently sent by the Cancer Prevention Coalition to state governors, besides senior officials in all 50 state health departments as well as to senior federal officials in all relevant agencies, and also staff members of relevant Congressional committees.

It is anticipated that Dr. Margaret Hamburg, the highly respected new Commissioner of the FDA, will take prompt action to protect the unsuspecting public from the dangers of rBST milk.

HORMONAL BEEF
Beef produced in the United States is heavily contaminated with natural or synthetic sex hormones, which are associated with an increased risk of reproductive and childhood cancers.

Increased levels of sex hormones are linked to the escalating incidence of reproductive cancers in the United States since 1975 – 60 percent for prostate, 59 percent for testis, and 10 percent for breast, warns the Cancer Prevention Coalition.

The hormones in past and current use include the natural estrogen, progesterone and testosterone, and the synthetic zeranol, trenbolone, and melengesterol.

When beef cattle enter feedlots, pellets of these hormones are implanted under the ear skin, a process that is repeated at the midpoint of their 100-day pre-slaughter fattening period. These hormones increase carcass weight, adding over $80 in extra profit per animal.

The Cancer Prevention Coalition warned that, “Not surprisingly, but contrary to longstanding claims by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), residues of these hormones in meat are up to 20-fold higher than normal. Still higher residues result from the not uncommon illegal practice of implantation directly into muscle. Furthermore, contrary to misleading assurances, meat is still not monitored for hormone residues.” Nevertheless, the FDA and USDA still maintain that hormone residues in meat are within “normal levels,” while waiving any requirements for residue testing.

Following a single ear implant in steers of Synovex-S, a combination of estrogen and progesterone, residues of these hormones in meat were found to be up to 20-fold higher than normal.

The amount of estradiol in two hamburgers eaten in one day by an 8-year-old boy could increase his total hormone levels by as much as 10%, particularly as young children have very low natural hormone levels. Not surprisingly, the coalition warns, the incidence of childhood cancer has increased by 38 percent since 1975.

These concerns are not new. As evidenced in a series of General Accountability Office investigations and Congressional hearings, FDA residue-tolerance programs and USDA inspections are in near total disarray, aggravated by brazen denials and cover-ups.

A January 1986 report, “Human Food Safety and the Regulation of Animal Drugs,” unanimously approved by the House Committee on Government Operations, concluded that “the FDA has consistently disregarded its responsibility – has repeatedly put what is perceives are interests of veterinarians and the livestock industry ahead of its legal obligation to protect consumers, thus jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers of meat, milk and poultry.”

On January 1, 1989, the European Community placed a ban on meat imports from animals treated with growth inducing hormones. This had a direct impact on the U.S. beef industry, which used the hormones in more than half of the cattle sent to market each year.

Twenty years later, on May 6, 2009, the European Union and the United States settled their long- running dispute over hormone-treated beef. Under terms of the four-year deal the EU will be permitted to maintain its ban on hormone-fed beef. In return, the EU has agreed to increase the amount of hormone-free beef that can be imported from the U.S. without duty.

It is well recognized that American women have a greater risk of breast cancer than women in countries that do not permit the sale of hormonal beef.

THE WHITE HOUSE
On November 4, 2009, the Cancer Prevention Coalition submitted a 10/21/09 press release on “Hormones in U.S. Beef Linked to Increased Cancer Risks,” and a 10/28/09 release on “Dr. Epstein’s 20 Year Fight Against Biotech Cancer Causing Milk” to Katie McCormick, Press Secretary to First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama; to Jocelyn Frey, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy; and to Sam Kass, White House Food Initiative Coordinator and the Obama family’s personal chef at the White House. Replies are pending.

More on Health


Donna Henes: Festivals of Light in the Dark

December 23rd, 2009 admin No comments

A common theme of Winter Solstice ceremonies everywhere is the burning of fires to symbolically re-kindle the dwindling sun. People gather together to cheer on the ascendancy of the light, the victory of the very forces of life.

The Hindu Festival of Lights, Divali, The Festival of Light, comes about six weeks before the Winter Solstice. The story surrounding Divali is that Lord Rama, the hero of the Hindu epic, Ramayana, was sent into exile (read darkness), but he redeems himself by slaying the evil ten-headed Demon King Ravana, who had stolen his wife, Sita, the light of his life. He is then, after fourteen years, able to return home in triumph.

On Divali, people light his way back into the fold each year and at the same time, invite the gifts of the Goddess of Prosperity and Plenty, Lakshmi. They place clusters of deyas, small clay lanterns filled with oil and a burning cotton wick, along all the pathways, garden walls, windowsills and patios in towns and villages, their flickering glow, providing a warm welcome.

Chanukah, the Jewish Festival of Lights celebrated near the Winter Solstice, commemorates a miracle which is a metaphor for the dwindling, then returning light of the season. The popular story goes: the stock of oil, which was used to fuel the everlasting light on the altar of The Temple, ran low. A one-day supply was all that was left, but it was somehow able to continue burning for the eight days that it took to procure more.

The eight-day Chanukah ritual involves the lightening and blessing of eight candles in a menorah, or ceremonial candelabra. One additional flame is kindled each night, mimicking the gradual gathering of light in the dark sky. For Jews, the candles represent the light of truth, the flame of freedom.

Throughout Northern Europe where the weather is more severe, the solstice fires were lit indoors. The Yule log and colored light decorations which are today emblematic of Christmas are the same as were once lit in honor of Sulis, Sol, Sunna, the old Goddess of the Sun. In Sweden, Santa Lucia, Saint Lucy, Holy Light, is observed on December 13, the date of the Winter Solstice on the old Julian calendar. Young girls dressed in white nightgowns with crowns of lit candles in their hair parade the streets at dawn, waking people with coffee and fresh baked cakes in the spiral shape of the many-spoked sun wheel.

Kwanzaa is an African American holiday that has been celebrated during the solstice season since 1966, when it was first designed by Dr. Maulana Kerenga, a Black Studies professor and cultural nationalist at Berkeley. Although it is inspired by West African harvest and thanksgiving festivals — Kwanzaa means “first fruits” in Kiswahili — it is celebrated like a solstice fire festival.

A major ritual element is the lighting of seven red, black, and green candles in a kinara, a holder. Each candle stands for the Seven African Principles, fundamental precepts upon which a creative, productive and successful community life is based: Umoja, unity; Kujichagulia, self-determination; Ujima, collective work; Ujamaa, shared economics; Nia, life purpose; Kuumba, creativity; Imani, faith. Beginning on December 26, they are lit alternately from left to right, one each night, until they are all aglow.

Since the earliest of human times, it has been both natural and necessary for folks to join together in the warmth and glow of community in order to welcome the return of light to a world that is surrounded by dark. And through the imitative gesture of lighting fires, like so many solar birthday candles, we do our annual part to rekindle the spirit of hope and light in our hearts.

Lighting a light at the darkest time of the year is a pledge somehow. A promise. A sacred vow. Such a small, symbolic gesture. So elegantly simple. So significant. Each tentative flicker of each flame is a reminder of the fragility and pulsating persistence of the life force. Each spark, a signal flare of faith.

One by one, in tiny increments,
candle by candle, gesture by effort,
wish by prayer, concern by care,
we feed the life-fires of the soul
and light the infinite universe,
little by little from within.

- DH

More on Hanukkah


Categories: World Tags: , , ,

Samuel S. Epstein: American Publlic Health Association Supports Ban On Milk And Meat

December 23rd, 2009 admin No comments

The Cancer Prevention Coalition is pleased to announce that the Governing Council of the American Public Health Association has voted to oppose the continued sale and use of genetically engineered hormonal rBGH milk, and also meat adulterated with sex hormones. This decision is based on long-standing scientific and public policy information developed and published by the Cancer Prevention Coalition over the last two decades, as summarized below.

rBGH MILK
This hormone is injected in about 20 percent of U.S. dairy cows to increase milk production. While the industry claims that the hormone is safe for cows, and that the milk is safe for consumers, this is blatantly false.

  • rBGH makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 toxic veterinary effects, including mastitis, on the label of Posilac (rBGH,) which is injected in cows to increase milk production. Monsanto’s Posilac product was acquired by Eli Lilly in 2008.
  • rBGH milk is contaminated by pus, due to mastitis, an udder infection commonly induced by the hormone, and also by antibiotics used to treat the mastitis.
  • rBGH milk is chemically and nutritionally different than natural milk.
  • Milk from cows injected with rBGH is contaminated with the hormone, traces of which are absorbed through the gut into the blood of people who consume this milk or its products.
  • rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of the natural growth factor (IGF-1), which is readily absorbed through the gut.
  • Excess levels of IGF-1 have been incriminated in well-documented scientific publications by the Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition as causes of breast, colon, and prostate cancers. Additionally, IGF-1 blocks natural defense mechanisms against early submicroscopic cancers.

Cancer Prevention Coalition Chairman Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. says, “These warnings, and related information were updated in my 2006 book, What’s in Your Milk (TRAFFORD Publishing) supported by over 320 references, and endorsed by Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director, Institute for Responsible Technology, and by Dr. Quentin Young, Past President American Public Health Association.”

Warnings by the Cancer Prevention Coalition of these risks in 1990 have been endorsed by the National Family Farm Coalition, representing 30 organizations, and also by the Campaign Against rBS, representing 10 organizations.

A 2007 Cancer Prevention Coalition petition to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “Seeking Withdrawal of the New Animal Drug application for rBST,” was endorsed by the Organic Consumers Association, Farm Defenders, and the Institute for Responsible Technology. However, the FDA failed to responded to or act on this petition. This petition was endorsed by the Organic Consumers Association, the Family Farm Defenders, and the Institute for Responsible Technology.

Furthermore, the FDA has remained indifferent to these risks, in spite of longstanding Congressional concerns. Illustrative is the 1986 Congressional report, “Human Food Safety and Regulation of Animal Drugs,” by the House Committee on Government Operations. This report concluded that the “FDA has consistently disregarded its responsibility… has repeatedly put what it perceives are interests of veterinarians and the livestock industry ahead of its legal obligations to protect consumers – jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers of meat and milk.”

Of particular concern are risks to infants and children in view of their high susceptibility to cancer-causing ingredients in consumer products.

These risks are readily avoidable by consuming organic milk. According to The Hartman Group, a prominent Seattle consulting firm, organic milk is now among the first organic product that consumers buy. Organic milk is becoming increasingly available, with an annual growth rate of about 20 percent, while overall milk consumption is dropping by 10 percent.

Nevertheless, only a few schools make organic milk available, nor do most state governments, under low-income food programs, particularly by the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.”

Wal-Mart is now the biggest seller of certified organic milk, followed by Horizon Organic, owned by Dean Foods, the nation’s largest dairy producer, and by Groupe Danone, the leading French dairy company. While growth in this market is still held back by the higher price of organic milk, this problem is likely to be resolved by Wal-Mart’s competitive pricing.

In sharp contrast to the United States, the European Union nations, as well as Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand, Japan, and Canada, all have banned the use and imports of hormonal milk and dairy products.

This information was recently sent by the Cancer Prevention Coalition to state governors, besides senior officials in all 50 state health departments as well as to senior federal officials in all relevant agencies, and also staff members of relevant Congressional committees.

It is anticipated that Dr. Margaret Hamburg, the highly respected new Commissioner of the FDA, will take prompt action to protect the unsuspecting public from the dangers of rBST milk.

HORMONAL BEEF
Beef produced in the United States is heavily contaminated with natural or synthetic sex hormones, which are associated with an increased risk of reproductive and childhood cancers.

Increased levels of sex hormones are linked to the escalating incidence of reproductive cancers in the United States since 1975 – 60 percent for prostate, 59 percent for testis, and 10 percent for breast, warns the Cancer Prevention Coalition.

The hormones in past and current use include the natural estrogen, progesterone and testosterone, and the synthetic zeranol, trenbolone, and melengesterol.

When beef cattle enter feedlots, pellets of these hormones are implanted under the ear skin, a process that is repeated at the midpoint of their 100-day pre-slaughter fattening period. These hormones increase carcass weight, adding over $80 in extra profit per animal.

The Cancer Prevention Coalition warned that, “Not surprisingly, but contrary to longstanding claims by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), residues of these hormones in meat are up to 20-fold higher than normal. Still higher residues result from the not uncommon illegal practice of implantation directly into muscle. Furthermore, contrary to misleading assurances, meat is still not monitored for hormone residues.” Nevertheless, the FDA and USDA still maintain that hormone residues in meat are within “normal levels,” while waiving any requirements for residue testing.

Following a single ear implant in steers of Synovex-S, a combination of estrogen and progesterone, residues of these hormones in meat were found to be up to 20-fold higher than normal.

The amount of estradiol in two hamburgers eaten in one day by an 8-year-old boy could increase his total hormone levels by as much as 10%, particularly as young children have very low natural hormone levels. Not surprisingly, the coalition warns, the incidence of childhood cancer has increased by 38 percent since 1975.

These concerns are not new. As evidenced in a series of General Accountability Office investigations and Congressional hearings, FDA residue-tolerance programs and USDA inspections are in near total disarray, aggravated by brazen denials and cover-ups.

A January 1986 report, “Human Food Safety and the Regulation of Animal Drugs,” unanimously approved by the House Committee on Government Operations, concluded that “the FDA has consistently disregarded its responsibility – has repeatedly put what is perceives are interests of veterinarians and the livestock industry ahead of its legal obligation to protect consumers, thus jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers of meat, milk and poultry.”

On January 1, 1989, the European Community placed a ban on meat imports from animals treated with growth inducing hormones. This had a direct impact on the U.S. beef industry, which used the hormones in more than half of the cattle sent to market each year.

Twenty years later, on May 6, 2009, the European Union and the United States settled their long- running dispute over hormone-treated beef. Under terms of the four-year deal the EU will be permitted to maintain its ban on hormone-fed beef. In return, the EU has agreed to increase the amount of hormone-free beef that can be imported from the U.S. without duty.

It is well recognized that American women have a greater risk of breast cancer than women in countries that do not permit the sale of hormonal beef.

THE WHITE HOUSE
On November 4, 2009, the Cancer Prevention Coalition submitted a 10/21/09 press release on “Hormones in U.S. Beef Linked to Increased Cancer Risks,” and a 10/28/09 release on “Dr. Epstein’s 20 Year Fight Against Biotech Cancer Causing Milk” to Katie McCormick, Press Secretary to First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama; to Jocelyn Frey, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy; and to Sam Kass, White House Food Initiative Coordinator and the Obama family’s personal chef at the White House. Replies are pending.

More on Health


Samuel S. Epstein: American Publlic Health Association Supports Ban On Milk And Meat

December 23rd, 2009 admin No comments

The Cancer Prevention Coalition is pleased to announce that the Governing Council of the American Public Health Association has voted to oppose the continued sale and use of genetically engineered hormonal rBGH milk, and also meat adulterated with sex hormones. This decision is based on long-standing scientific and public policy information developed and published by the Cancer Prevention Coalition over the last two decades, as summarized below.

rBGH MILK
This hormone is injected in about 20 percent of U.S. dairy cows to increase milk production. While the industry claims that the hormone is safe for cows, and that the milk is safe for consumers, this is blatantly false.

  • rBGH makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 toxic veterinary effects, including mastitis, on the label of Posilac (rBGH,) which is injected in cows to increase milk production. Monsanto’s Posilac product was acquired by Eli Lilly in 2008.
  • rBGH milk is contaminated by pus, due to mastitis, an udder infection commonly induced by the hormone, and also by antibiotics used to treat the mastitis.
  • rBGH milk is chemically and nutritionally different than natural milk.
  • Milk from cows injected with rBGH is contaminated with the hormone, traces of which are absorbed through the gut into the blood of people who consume this milk or its products.
  • rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of the natural growth factor (IGF-1), which is readily absorbed through the gut.
  • Excess levels of IGF-1 have been incriminated in well-documented scientific publications by the Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition as causes of breast, colon, and prostate cancers. Additionally, IGF-1 blocks natural defense mechanisms against early submicroscopic cancers.

Cancer Prevention Coalition Chairman Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. says, “These warnings, and related information were updated in my 2006 book, What’s in Your Milk (TRAFFORD Publishing) supported by over 320 references, and endorsed by Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director, Institute for Responsible Technology, and by Dr. Quentin Young, Past President American Public Health Association.”

Warnings by the Cancer Prevention Coalition of these risks in 1990 have been endorsed by the National Family Farm Coalition, representing 30 organizations, and also by the Campaign Against rBS, representing 10 organizations.

A 2007 Cancer Prevention Coalition petition to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “Seeking Withdrawal of the New Animal Drug application for rBST,” was endorsed by the Organic Consumers Association, Farm Defenders, and the Institute for Responsible Technology. However, the FDA failed to responded to or act on this petition. This petition was endorsed by the Organic Consumers Association, the Family Farm Defenders, and the Institute for Responsible Technology.

Furthermore, the FDA has remained indifferent to these risks, in spite of longstanding Congressional concerns. Illustrative is the 1986 Congressional report, “Human Food Safety and Regulation of Animal Drugs,” by the House Committee on Government Operations. This report concluded that the “FDA has consistently disregarded its responsibility… has repeatedly put what it perceives are interests of veterinarians and the livestock industry ahead of its legal obligations to protect consumers – jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers of meat and milk.”

Of particular concern are risks to infants and children in view of their high susceptibility to cancer-causing ingredients in consumer products.

These risks are readily avoidable by consuming organic milk. According to The Hartman Group, a prominent Seattle consulting firm, organic milk is now among the first organic product that consumers buy. Organic milk is becoming increasingly available, with an annual growth rate of about 20 percent, while overall milk consumption is dropping by 10 percent.

Nevertheless, only a few schools make organic milk available, nor do most state governments, under low-income food programs, particularly by the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.”

Wal-Mart is now the biggest seller of certified organic milk, followed by Horizon Organic, owned by Dean Foods, the nation’s largest dairy producer, and by Groupe Danone, the leading French dairy company. While growth in this market is still held back by the higher price of organic milk, this problem is likely to be resolved by Wal-Mart’s competitive pricing.

In sharp contrast to the United States, the European Union nations, as well as Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand, Japan, and Canada, all have banned the use and imports of hormonal milk and dairy products.

This information was recently sent by the Cancer Prevention Coalition to state governors, besides senior officials in all 50 state health departments as well as to senior federal officials in all relevant agencies, and also staff members of relevant Congressional committees.

It is anticipated that Dr. Margaret Hamburg, the highly respected new Commissioner of the FDA, will take prompt action to protect the unsuspecting public from the dangers of rBST milk.

HORMONAL BEEF
Beef produced in the United States is heavily contaminated with natural or synthetic sex hormones, which are associated with an increased risk of reproductive and childhood cancers.

Increased levels of sex hormones are linked to the escalating incidence of reproductive cancers in the United States since 1975 – 60 percent for prostate, 59 percent for testis, and 10 percent for breast, warns the Cancer Prevention Coalition.

The hormones in past and current use include the natural estrogen, progesterone and testosterone, and the synthetic zeranol, trenbolone, and melengesterol.

When beef cattle enter feedlots, pellets of these hormones are implanted under the ear skin, a process that is repeated at the midpoint of their 100-day pre-slaughter fattening period. These hormones increase carcass weight, adding over $80 in extra profit per animal.

The Cancer Prevention Coalition warned that, “Not surprisingly, but contrary to longstanding claims by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), residues of these hormones in meat are up to 20-fold higher than normal. Still higher residues result from the not uncommon illegal practice of implantation directly into muscle. Furthermore, contrary to misleading assurances, meat is still not monitored for hormone residues.” Nevertheless, the FDA and USDA still maintain that hormone residues in meat are within “normal levels,” while waiving any requirements for residue testing.

Following a single ear implant in steers of Synovex-S, a combination of estrogen and progesterone, residues of these hormones in meat were found to be up to 20-fold higher than normal.

The amount of estradiol in two hamburgers eaten in one day by an 8-year-old boy could increase his total hormone levels by as much as 10%, particularly as young children have very low natural hormone levels. Not surprisingly, the coalition warns, the incidence of childhood cancer has increased by 38 percent since 1975.

These concerns are not new. As evidenced in a series of General Accountability Office investigations and Congressional hearings, FDA residue-tolerance programs and USDA inspections are in near total disarray, aggravated by brazen denials and cover-ups.

A January 1986 report, “Human Food Safety and the Regulation of Animal Drugs,” unanimously approved by the House Committee on Government Operations, concluded that “the FDA has consistently disregarded its responsibility – has repeatedly put what is perceives are interests of veterinarians and the livestock industry ahead of its legal obligation to protect consumers, thus jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers of meat, milk and poultry.”

On January 1, 1989, the European Community placed a ban on meat imports from animals treated with growth inducing hormones. This had a direct impact on the U.S. beef industry, which used the hormones in more than half of the cattle sent to market each year.

Twenty years later, on May 6, 2009, the European Union and the United States settled their long- running dispute over hormone-treated beef. Under terms of the four-year deal the EU will be permitted to maintain its ban on hormone-fed beef. In return, the EU has agreed to increase the amount of hormone-free beef that can be imported from the U.S. without duty.

It is well recognized that American women have a greater risk of breast cancer than women in countries that do not permit the sale of hormonal beef.

THE WHITE HOUSE
On November 4, 2009, the Cancer Prevention Coalition submitted a 10/21/09 press release on “Hormones in U.S. Beef Linked to Increased Cancer Risks,” and a 10/28/09 release on “Dr. Epstein’s 20 Year Fight Against Biotech Cancer Causing Milk” to Katie McCormick, Press Secretary to First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama; to Jocelyn Frey, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy; and to Sam Kass, White House Food Initiative Coordinator and the Obama family’s personal chef at the White House. Replies are pending.

More on Health


Samuel S. Epstein: American Publlic Health Association Supports Ban On Milk And Meat

December 23rd, 2009 admin No comments

The Cancer Prevention Coalition is pleased to announce that the Governing Council of the American Public Health Association has voted to oppose the continued sale and use of genetically engineered hormonal rBGH milk, and also meat adulterated with sex hormones. This decision is based on long-standing scientific and public policy information developed and published by the Cancer Prevention Coalition over the last two decades, as summarized below.

rBGH MILK
This hormone is injected in about 20 percent of U.S. dairy cows to increase milk production. While the industry claims that the hormone is safe for cows, and that the milk is safe for consumers, this is blatantly false.

  • rBGH makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 toxic veterinary effects, including mastitis, on the label of Posilac (rBGH,) which is injected in cows to increase milk production. Monsanto’s Posilac product was acquired by Eli Lilly in 2008.
  • rBGH milk is contaminated by pus, due to mastitis, an udder infection commonly induced by the hormone, and also by antibiotics used to treat the mastitis.
  • rBGH milk is chemically and nutritionally different than natural milk.
  • Milk from cows injected with rBGH is contaminated with the hormone, traces of which are absorbed through the gut into the blood of people who consume this milk or its products.
  • rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of the natural growth factor (IGF-1), which is readily absorbed through the gut.
  • Excess levels of IGF-1 have been incriminated in well-documented scientific publications by the Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition as causes of breast, colon, and prostate cancers. Additionally, IGF-1 blocks natural defense mechanisms against early submicroscopic cancers.

Cancer Prevention Coalition Chairman Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. says, “These warnings, and related information were updated in my 2006 book, What’s in Your Milk (TRAFFORD Publishing) supported by over 320 references, and endorsed by Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director, Institute for Responsible Technology, and by Dr. Quentin Young, Past President American Public Health Association.”

Warnings by the Cancer Prevention Coalition of these risks in 1990 have been endorsed by the National Family Farm Coalition, representing 30 organizations, and also by the Campaign Against rBS, representing 10 organizations.

A 2007 Cancer Prevention Coalition petition to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “Seeking Withdrawal of the New Animal Drug application for rBST,” was endorsed by the Organic Consumers Association, Farm Defenders, and the Institute for Responsible Technology. However, the FDA failed to responded to or act on this petition. This petition was endorsed by the Organic Consumers Association, the Family Farm Defenders, and the Institute for Responsible Technology.

Furthermore, the FDA has remained indifferent to these risks, in spite of longstanding Congressional concerns. Illustrative is the 1986 Congressional report, “Human Food Safety and Regulation of Animal Drugs,” by the House Committee on Government Operations. This report concluded that the “FDA has consistently disregarded its responsibility… has repeatedly put what it perceives are interests of veterinarians and the livestock industry ahead of its legal obligations to protect consumers – jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers of meat and milk.”

Of particular concern are risks to infants and children in view of their high susceptibility to cancer-causing ingredients in consumer products.

These risks are readily avoidable by consuming organic milk. According to The Hartman Group, a prominent Seattle consulting firm, organic milk is now among the first organic product that consumers buy. Organic milk is becoming increasingly available, with an annual growth rate of about 20 percent, while overall milk consumption is dropping by 10 percent.

Nevertheless, only a few schools make organic milk available, nor do most state governments, under low-income food programs, particularly by the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.”

Wal-Mart is now the biggest seller of certified organic milk, followed by Horizon Organic, owned by Dean Foods, the nation’s largest dairy producer, and by Groupe Danone, the leading French dairy company. While growth in this market is still held back by the higher price of organic milk, this problem is likely to be resolved by Wal-Mart’s competitive pricing.

In sharp contrast to the United States, the European Union nations, as well as Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand, Japan, and Canada, all have banned the use and imports of hormonal milk and dairy products.

This information was recently sent by the Cancer Prevention Coalition to state governors, besides senior officials in all 50 state health departments as well as to senior federal officials in all relevant agencies, and also staff members of relevant Congressional committees.

It is anticipated that Dr. Margaret Hamburg, the highly respected new Commissioner of the FDA, will take prompt action to protect the unsuspecting public from the dangers of rBST milk.

HORMONAL BEEF
Beef produced in the United States is heavily contaminated with natural or synthetic sex hormones, which are associated with an increased risk of reproductive and childhood cancers.

Increased levels of sex hormones are linked to the escalating incidence of reproductive cancers in the United States since 1975 – 60 percent for prostate, 59 percent for testis, and 10 percent for breast, warns the Cancer Prevention Coalition.

The hormones in past and current use include the natural estrogen, progesterone and testosterone, and the synthetic zeranol, trenbolone, and melengesterol.

When beef cattle enter feedlots, pellets of these hormones are implanted under the ear skin, a process that is repeated at the midpoint of their 100-day pre-slaughter fattening period. These hormones increase carcass weight, adding over $80 in extra profit per animal.

The Cancer Prevention Coalition warned that, “Not surprisingly, but contrary to longstanding claims by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), residues of these hormones in meat are up to 20-fold higher than normal. Still higher residues result from the not uncommon illegal practice of implantation directly into muscle. Furthermore, contrary to misleading assurances, meat is still not monitored for hormone residues.” Nevertheless, the FDA and USDA still maintain that hormone residues in meat are within “normal levels,” while waiving any requirements for residue testing.

Following a single ear implant in steers of Synovex-S, a combination of estrogen and progesterone, residues of these hormones in meat were found to be up to 20-fold higher than normal.

The amount of estradiol in two hamburgers eaten in one day by an 8-year-old boy could increase his total hormone levels by as much as 10%, particularly as young children have very low natural hormone levels. Not surprisingly, the coalition warns, the incidence of childhood cancer has increased by 38 percent since 1975.

These concerns are not new. As evidenced in a series of General Accountability Office investigations and Congressional hearings, FDA residue-tolerance programs and USDA inspections are in near total disarray, aggravated by brazen denials and cover-ups.

A January 1986 report, “Human Food Safety and the Regulation of Animal Drugs,” unanimously approved by the House Committee on Government Operations, concluded that “the FDA has consistently disregarded its responsibility – has repeatedly put what is perceives are interests of veterinarians and the livestock industry ahead of its legal obligation to protect consumers, thus jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers of meat, milk and poultry.”

On January 1, 1989, the European Community placed a ban on meat imports from animals treated with growth inducing hormones. This had a direct impact on the U.S. beef industry, which used the hormones in more than half of the cattle sent to market each year.

Twenty years later, on May 6, 2009, the European Union and the United States settled their long- running dispute over hormone-treated beef. Under terms of the four-year deal the EU will be permitted to maintain its ban on hormone-fed beef. In return, the EU has agreed to increase the amount of hormone-free beef that can be imported from the U.S. without duty.

It is well recognized that American women have a greater risk of breast cancer than women in countries that do not permit the sale of hormonal beef.

THE WHITE HOUSE
On November 4, 2009, the Cancer Prevention Coalition submitted a 10/21/09 press release on “Hormones in U.S. Beef Linked to Increased Cancer Risks,” and a 10/28/09 release on “Dr. Epstein’s 20 Year Fight Against Biotech Cancer Causing Milk” to Katie McCormick, Press Secretary to First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama; to Jocelyn Frey, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy; and to Sam Kass, White House Food Initiative Coordinator and the Obama family’s personal chef at the White House. Replies are pending.

More on Health


Dr. Anne Chapas: Holiday Stress and Your Skin

December 23rd, 2009 admin No comments

With all the food, socializing, and stress, the holidays can be hard on your skin. Every year from Thanksgiving to New Year’s Day, I see an increase in patients that are distressed by acne flares. They can’t understand why they have good skin year round, but now, suddenly, cysts and bumps are ruining their holiday spirit. Recent studies on the pathogenesis of acne, however, may offer an explanation for these seasonal break outs and possibly ways to combat them.

Dermatologists have long debated the role of diet in acne and hoped that a simple dietary change could help with a disease that is often difficult to control. Many studies have shown that acne is mostly a problem of Western society and is rare in Non-Westerized societies. In particular, Dr. Cordain and colleagues showed that while 79-95% of Western adolescents experience acne vulgaris, it is almost nonexistent in the Kitavan Islanders of Papua New Guinea and the Ache hunter-gatherers of Paraguay. Although this suggests that a Westernized diet may contribute to the high rate of acne in our society, their research did not control for genetic factors that play a strong role in acne development.

In another study, Dr. Varigos and his Australian colleagues controlled for these genetic factors while evaluating the effect of high glycemic diets on acne flares. Over their 12 week study, the researchers randomly assigned 54 male participants with mild to moderate acne to a low glycemic diet or to a conventional high glycemic diet and rated their acne severity and insulin sensitivity. According to the study, participants in the low glycemic group

“were educated on how to substitute high glycemic index foods with foods higher in protein (eg, lean meat, poultry, or fish) and lower in glycemic index (eg, whole grain bread, pasta, and fruits)… The recommended low glycemic index diet consisted of 25% energy from protein, 45% from low glycemic index carbohydrates and 30% energy from fats. In contrast, the control group received carbohydrate-dense staples and were instructed to eat these or similar foods daily.”

Study participants who followed the low glycemic diet had significant improvement in their acne and insulin sensitivity. The researchers hypothesize that improved sensitivity to insulin may reduce circulating testosterone levels, which subsequently reduces oil production in the sebaceous glands and proliferation of acne causing bacteria. This study suggests that diet does play a role in acne development.

Other researchers are focusing on stress as a cause for acne flares. Dr Kimball and colleagues followed college students during examination periods to determine whether their perceived level of stress correlated with an exacerbation of acne. After controlling for changes in sleep hours, sleep quality, diet quality, and number of meals per day, they found that increased acne severity was significantly associated with increased stress levels. Hormones released in times of stress, such as corticotropin releasing hormone, may stimulate inflammation and hormonal cascades, which produce acne flares. Biopsies of acne involved skin show far greater localization of corticotropin releasing hormone in oil glands than non acne skin, giving more support to this theory.

Regardless of the cause, people who suffer from holiday acne are eager to get rid of it prior to spending time with friends and loved ones. If improving your diet and lowering your stress are not enough, there are several over the counter treatments that can be useful in resolving acne as quickly as possible. For people who suffer from clogged pores, washes and lotions that contain 2% salicylic acid can help dissolve the keratin plug and open the pore. It is important to remove these blockages because sebum inside the blocked pores promotes the growth of P. acnes, bacteria that leads to red bumps and pustules. Should these develop, I recommend products containing benzoyl peroxide, one of the strongest P. acnes killers and is available in a variety of over the counter products ranging from 2.5% to 10%. Because benzoyl peroxide can be irritating, try the lower strength products first, twice a day to the problem areas. Finally, cysts anywhere on the face can be painful and distressing. Squeezing the cyst may remove the contents temporarily but this can lead to scarring and infection. The best treatment option is to see a dermatologist for corticosteroid injection that flattens the cyst in about 24 hours.

Enjoy the holiday season, but if lifestyle modification and over the counter treatments fail to treat your acne, seek professional help here and start 2010 with great skin!


Categories: World Tags: , , ,

Samuel S. Epstein: American Publlic Health Association Supports Ban On Milk And Meat

December 23rd, 2009 admin No comments

The Cancer Prevention Coalition is pleased to announce that the Governing Council of the American Public Health Association has voted to oppose the continued sale and use of genetically engineered hormonal rBGH milk, and also meat adulterated with sex hormones. This decision is based on long-standing scientific and public policy information developed and published by the Cancer Prevention Coalition over the last two decades, as summarized below.

rBGH MILK
This hormone is injected in about 20 percent of U.S. dairy cows to increase milk production. While the industry claims that the hormone is safe for cows, and that the milk is safe for consumers, this is blatantly false.

  • rBGH makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 toxic veterinary effects, including mastitis, on the label of Posilac (rBGH,) which is injected in cows to increase milk production. Monsanto’s Posilac product was acquired by Eli Lilly in 2008.
  • rBGH milk is contaminated by pus, due to mastitis, an udder infection commonly induced by the hormone, and also by antibiotics used to treat the mastitis.
  • rBGH milk is chemically and nutritionally different than natural milk.
  • Milk from cows injected with rBGH is contaminated with the hormone, traces of which are absorbed through the gut into the blood of people who consume this milk or its products.
  • rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of the natural growth factor (IGF-1), which is readily absorbed through the gut.
  • Excess levels of IGF-1 have been incriminated in well-documented scientific publications by the Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition as causes of breast, colon, and prostate cancers. Additionally, IGF-1 blocks natural defense mechanisms against early submicroscopic cancers.

Cancer Prevention Coalition Chairman Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. says, “These warnings, and related information were updated in my 2006 book, What’s in Your Milk (TRAFFORD Publishing) supported by over 320 references, and endorsed by Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director, Institute for Responsible Technology, and by Dr. Quentin Young, Past President American Public Health Association.”

Warnings by the Cancer Prevention Coalition of these risks in 1990 have been endorsed by the National Family Farm Coalition, representing 30 organizations, and also by the Campaign Against rBS, representing 10 organizations.

A 2007 Cancer Prevention Coalition petition to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “Seeking Withdrawal of the New Animal Drug application for rBST,” was endorsed by the Organic Consumers Association, Farm Defenders, and the Institute for Responsible Technology. However, the FDA failed to responded to or act on this petition. This petition was endorsed by the Organic Consumers Association, the Family Farm Defenders, and the Institute for Responsible Technology.

Furthermore, the FDA has remained indifferent to these risks, in spite of longstanding Congressional concerns. Illustrative is the 1986 Congressional report, “Human Food Safety and Regulation of Animal Drugs,” by the House Committee on Government Operations. This report concluded that the “FDA has consistently disregarded its responsibility… has repeatedly put what it perceives are interests of veterinarians and the livestock industry ahead of its legal obligations to protect consumers – jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers of meat and milk.”

Of particular concern are risks to infants and children in view of their high susceptibility to cancer-causing ingredients in consumer products.

These risks are readily avoidable by consuming organic milk. According to The Hartman Group, a prominent Seattle consulting firm, organic milk is now among the first organic product that consumers buy. Organic milk is becoming increasingly available, with an annual growth rate of about 20 percent, while overall milk consumption is dropping by 10 percent.

Nevertheless, only a few schools make organic milk available, nor do most state governments, under low-income food programs, particularly by the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.”

Wal-Mart is now the biggest seller of certified organic milk, followed by Horizon Organic, owned by Dean Foods, the nation’s largest dairy producer, and by Groupe Danone, the leading French dairy company. While growth in this market is still held back by the higher price of organic milk, this problem is likely to be resolved by Wal-Mart’s competitive pricing.

In sharp contrast to the United States, the European Union nations, as well as Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand, Japan, and Canada, all have banned the use and imports of hormonal milk and dairy products.

This information was recently sent by the Cancer Prevention Coalition to state governors, besides senior officials in all 50 state health departments as well as to senior federal officials in all relevant agencies, and also staff members of relevant Congressional committees.

It is anticipated that Dr. Margaret Hamburg, the highly respected new Commissioner of the FDA, will take prompt action to protect the unsuspecting public from the dangers of rBST milk.

HORMONAL BEEF
Beef produced in the United States is heavily contaminated with natural or synthetic sex hormones, which are associated with an increased risk of reproductive and childhood cancers.

Increased levels of sex hormones are linked to the escalating incidence of reproductive cancers in the United States since 1975 – 60 percent for prostate, 59 percent for testis, and 10 percent for breast, warns the Cancer Prevention Coalition.

The hormones in past and current use include the natural estrogen, progesterone and testosterone, and the synthetic zeranol, trenbolone, and melengesterol.

When beef cattle enter feedlots, pellets of these hormones are implanted under the ear skin, a process that is repeated at the midpoint of their 100-day pre-slaughter fattening period. These hormones increase carcass weight, adding over $80 in extra profit per animal.

The Cancer Prevention Coalition warned that, “Not surprisingly, but contrary to longstanding claims by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), residues of these hormones in meat are up to 20-fold higher than normal. Still higher residues result from the not uncommon illegal practice of implantation directly into muscle. Furthermore, contrary to misleading assurances, meat is still not monitored for hormone residues.” Nevertheless, the FDA and USDA still maintain that hormone residues in meat are within “normal levels,” while waiving any requirements for residue testing.

Following a single ear implant in steers of Synovex-S, a combination of estrogen and progesterone, residues of these hormones in meat were found to be up to 20-fold higher than normal.

The amount of estradiol in two hamburgers eaten in one day by an 8-year-old boy could increase his total hormone levels by as much as 10%, particularly as young children have very low natural hormone levels. Not surprisingly, the coalition warns, the incidence of childhood cancer has increased by 38 percent since 1975.

These concerns are not new. As evidenced in a series of General Accountability Office investigations and Congressional hearings, FDA residue-tolerance programs and USDA inspections are in near total disarray, aggravated by brazen denials and cover-ups.

A January 1986 report, “Human Food Safety and the Regulation of Animal Drugs,” unanimously approved by the House Committee on Government Operations, concluded that “the FDA has consistently disregarded its responsibility – has repeatedly put what is perceives are interests of veterinarians and the livestock industry ahead of its legal obligation to protect consumers, thus jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers of meat, milk and poultry.”

On January 1, 1989, the European Community placed a ban on meat imports from animals treated with growth inducing hormones. This had a direct impact on the U.S. beef industry, which used the hormones in more than half of the cattle sent to market each year.

Twenty years later, on May 6, 2009, the European Union and the United States settled their long- running dispute over hormone-treated beef. Under terms of the four-year deal the EU will be permitted to maintain its ban on hormone-fed beef. In return, the EU has agreed to increase the amount of hormone-free beef that can be imported from the U.S. without duty.

It is well recognized that American women have a greater risk of breast cancer than women in countries that do not permit the sale of hormonal beef.

THE WHITE HOUSE
On November 4, 2009, the Cancer Prevention Coalition submitted a 10/21/09 press release on “Hormones in U.S. Beef Linked to Increased Cancer Risks,” and a 10/28/09 release on “Dr. Epstein’s 20 Year Fight Against Biotech Cancer Causing Milk” to Katie McCormick, Press Secretary to First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama; to Jocelyn Frey, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy; and to Sam Kass, White House Food Initiative Coordinator and the Obama family’s personal chef at the White House. Replies are pending.

More on Health