Archive

Posts Tagged ‘French’

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


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


Janet Tavakoli: Treasury Cover-Up of Goldman’s Role in AIG Crisis?

December 22nd, 2009 admin No comments

In November 2009, I wrote the Huffington Post that Goldman Sachs Group nearly bankrupted AIG. In December, the Wall Street Journal explained to the general public that Goldman fueled AIG’s gambling and played a much bigger role in the mortgage bets that nearly felled American Insurance Group (AIG) than the Treasury, the Fed, or Goldman itself publicly disclosed.

The TARP Inspector General’s November 17 report missed the most damaging facts. Intentionally or otherwise, it was evasive action or just plain whitewash. The report failed to clarify Goldman’s role in AIG’s near collapse, and that of all the settlement deals, the U.S. taxpayers’ was by far the worst.

Goldman originated or bought protection from AIG on about $33 billion of the problematic $80 billion of U.S. mortgage assets that AIG “insured” with credit derivatives, about twice as much as the next two largest banks involved.

Goldman acted as middle-man on $14 billion of that amount, after it took the risk of mortgage assets originated by other banks and insured all of it with AIG. Goldman may wish to claim it “was only following orders,” but since Goldman also originated many of the mortgage assets ultimately protected by AIG, it should have been well aware of the risk posted to itself and to AIG. The risk was then Goldman’s. If AIG failed, Goldman Sachs would have had to make good on those trades. Goldman stuffed so much risk into A.I.G., that Goldman nearly killed its own “hedge.”

In November 2008, the New York Fed paid 100 cents on the dollar for the $14 billion of mortgage assets related to Goldman’s trades. Goldman estimated the assets had lost $9.6 billion or around two-thirds of their market value. Overall, the government’s bailout out of AIG allowed Goldman to avoided losses on its trades covering $22 billion in assets.

The U.S. taxpayer deserved a much better deal. In late July 2008, SCA, another bond insurer, settled similar contracts for only around thirteen cents on the dollar. In August 2008, Calyon, a French bank also involved in AIG’s transactions, settled disputed financial guarantees with FGIC, a bond insurer facing bankruptcy, for only ten cents on the dollar. Ambac, another bond insurer in need of capital, recently canceled similar trades for ten cents on the dollar.

Defenders argue that circumstances surrounding AIG were different from the other bond insurers. They are correct; the circumstances were worse. The Fed should have made sure any payments that originated from AIG, before or after the bailout, were only temporary loans to be repaid as soon as possible.

This link provides a snapshot from January 2008 of two of Goldman’s value-destroying securitizations that were protected by AIG. (You will have to enlarge the image after clicking, and the document is a bit awkward.) The first is Abacus 2005-2; Goldman originated and bought protection on these mortgage assets. The second is Davis Square Funding IV. Goldman originated this deal, and French bank Societe General bought protection from AIG against it.

Inside Goldman’s mortgage assets were value-destroying assets created by other Wall Street firms. Everyone bought each others’ junk so prices stayed artificially high, and the risk could be dumped on someone else. Of course, this doomed strategy eventually fell apart. At the time of the AIG bailout, losses were quickly eating away at the insides of these products cooked up in Wall Street’s financial meth labs.

Among the many shards of glass masquerading as gems, you will find Tourmaline CDO 2005-1. It was managed by Blackrock, the manager of the AIG assets that the Fed purchased with public money. Perhaps the Fed’s theory in handing out no bid contracts to Blackrock has something to do with the diligence displayed by a fox watching a hen house.

The Fed gave the U.S. taxpayer a raw deal. At the time Goldman got its give-away, Henry Paulson was treasury secretary–he was also Goldman’s CEO when it put on its trades with AIG–and former Goldman chairman Stephen Friedman was then chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein was the only Wall Street executive at one of Paulson’s bailout meetings. Goldman was inside the tent advising on the most self-serving way to save itself and gain unfettered access to public funds.

In the fall of 2008, Goldman Sachs became a bank holding company before switching to a less regulated financial holding company in August 2008. This prevented a run on Goldman Sachs and gave it permanent access to Fed funds, taxpayer money. Goldman pays rates near zero for short-term borrowing while it earns profits on the higher rates paid on the capital it is required to deposit with the Fed. Goldman also issued nearly $21 billion in debt guaranteed by the FDIC. Most valuable of all, however, is the perception that Goldman is so well-connected, that the government will never let it fail.

Goldman paid mega bonuses in past years subsidized by selling hot air. Now it proposes to again pay billions in bonuses based on earnings made possible by taxpayer dollars.

Now that the crisis is over, we should ask Goldman Sachs,–and all of AIG’s other trading partners involved in these trades–to buy back these mortgage assets at full price. Alternatively, we can impose a special tax. Instead of calling it a windfall profits tax, we might label it a “hot air” profits tax.

A Goldman spokesman denies it could have known these mortgage assets were a problem, but Goldman also acknowledged I had warned about them–and the grave risks they posed–at the time they were created. It said my opinion was in the “minority.” As it happens, Goldman’s opinion was proved tragically wrong, and mine was proved correct. It is not in the public interest to rely on Goldman’s opinion about the greater risk it now poses to the global markets, and the Treasury should exact a much greater financial cushion.

The global financial crisis and the special circumstances surrounding AIG’s bailout were extraordinary. It is unconscionable to reward value destroying activity that damaged not only AIG, but enabled massive damage to the U.S. economy. It is in the public interest to claw back public money. Goldman should buy back these mortgage assets at full price, or we should impose a reparations tax. Furthermore, Goldman should pay off its FDIC guaranteed debt, and once again become an investment bank with no access to Fed borrowing, before it pays taxpayer-subsidized bonuses to its employees.

The following is a December 21, 2009 FoxBusiness video: EMBED: Watch the latest business video at FOXBusiness.com

More on Henry Paulson


Av Sinensky: State Of Love And Trust: Pearl Jam’s Backspacer, Barack Obama, And The Nobel Peace Prize

December 22nd, 2009 admin No comments

My feelings about Pearl Jam can be summarized in eight simple words first uttered by Ben Harper when he appeared with them for a couple of songs at Madison Square Garden in 2003: “This is the greatest band in the world.” That title is not one I would use lightly (nor do I think would Mr. Ben Harper) given my love for music and my admiration for dozens of great bands. What is it then that earns Pearl Jam that title? Is it their raucous hard rock sound? Their legendary live performances? The incredible vastness of their catalog? Sure, all these things are a part of it. For me, however, what puts them a cut above other performers is the way their music, lyrics, and performances have impacted the way I see the world and have served as a reflection of the worldview of so many people. Social and political commentary is a pursuit that is often left to more traditional vocations, but Pearl Jam has never shied away from speaking their minds, be it on gun control, abortion, war, flag burning, the Religious Right, and a host of other topics. So it is of no surprise that when I am trying to understand an issue of the time, Pearl Jam will be one of the places I turn for guidance to see whether they can “shed a little light on it.”

An issue I’ve been trying to understand recently is the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama. This past Thursday, Obama became the fourth president in our nation’s history to receive this award. Speaking in Oslo, the president accepted the award with “deep gratitude and great humility.” By doing so, he reaffirmed his previous statement in October, upon learning that he would be honored, that he would view the award as a “call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century.”

The announcement of Obama’s award was met (and continues to be greeted) with much controversy. Many on the right have questioned whether Obama has achieved anything in his brief tenure as president to deserve the honor of such a prestigious award. In an official statement, Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said, “The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’” This sentiment quickly became the conventional wisdom in the mainstream media. On the morning of the announcement, ABC News’s Jake Tapper tweeted “apparently the standards are more exacting for an ASU honorary degree these days.” (An Arizona State University spokesperson in April explained a decision to invite the president to give the commencement address without also giving him an honorary degree by saying, “His body of work is yet to come. That’s why we’re not recognizing him with a degree at the beginning of his presidency.”) As the date of Obama’s award ceremony approached, the criticism began to emerge from the left, as well. Upon arriving in Oslo for the award, he was greeted by approximately 5,000 protesters opposed to his escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

Indeed, the president himself acknowledged these criticisms in the opening portion of his acceptance speech:

“And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who’ve received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight…But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars.”

Pundits and commentators all over the spectrum have tried to justify and explain the Nobel committee’s choice of Obama. Personally, I see no need to justify the awarding of a prize for peace that was awarded to and never revoked from Yasser Arafat, a man who, until he took his last breath, was an unapologetic terrorist and an organizer, condoner, and propagator of mass murder. The Nobel Peace Prize is a trophy that lost its legitimacy long ago, so I don’t really care whether Obama “deserved” it or not.

Why the committee chose Obama, on the other hand, is an interesting question because it gives us an insight into the way the committee, and by extension the international community, sees our new president and our country since his election. There have been all sorts of attempts to explain their choice of Obama, including the one given by the committee itself (”extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”). But the most telling one may have come in the form of a lighthearted, off-hand remark by Ana Marie Cox on Twitter: “Apparently Nobel prizes now being awarded to anyone who is not George Bush.” George Bush was unpopular at home and especially unpopular abroad. Obama’s best quality might be that he’s not George Bush, reviving optimism among those who had lost faith in the United States. This sentiment is especially evident throughout Pearl Jam’s latest album, Backspacer.

When Pearl Jam exploded onto the national music scene in 1991, much of their success was in their ability to tap into the angst and anger of a generation. Their debut album, Ten, was an 11-track long dissertation on abuse, suicide, unrequited love, rape, death, and murder. As of April 2009, it has sold 9.6 million copies in the U.S. This trend continued throughout the 90’s, as the band continued to pump out album after album of rock songs about isolation, alienation, and lack of faith in both god and humanity. The October 25, 1993 issue of Time Magazine featured a picture of Eddie Vedder with the appropriate title “All The Rage,” as it was their anger that resonated most with their followers.

pearl-jam-timeThe turn of the century and the swearing in of a new president only made this feeling more acute and more targeted. 2003’s Riot Act featured a track titled “Bushleaguer,” a clever attack ad on our 43rd president and a song that when performed live was often accompanied by the band donning Bush masks as they played. 2006’s self-titled album was even more overtly political, featuring songs on the war in Iraq (”World Wide Suicide”), the dwindling job market (”Unemployable”), and the betrayal of our troops (”Army Reserve.”) Indeed, the band’s ire and cynicism has always been present in their lyrics. To them, the two sides of the optimism/pessimism metaphor are “half empty” and “half full of shit” (”1/2 Full”). When it comes to the American Dream, they are “disbelieving” (”Gone”). When speaking about our government, they commented that “for every tool they lend us a loss of independence” (”Grievance.”) and they remade Phil Ochs’ classic “Here’s to the State of Mississippi” with their own stanzas about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Roberts, and Alberto Gonzalez, urging each of them to “find another country to be part of.” Lyrics like these were typical throughout their first eight studio albums. However, with their latest release this fall, it is clear that something has changed.

Their new album Backspacer hit stores this September, a mere eight months into Obama’s presidency. While fans continue to debate its place within the band’s body of work and legacy, its distinct tone and themes as compared to their previous works are pretty much agreed upon by all. The album’s first single, “The Fixer,” tells us of someone obsessed with making things better: “when something’s dark, let me shed a little light on it…when something’s broke, I wanna put a bit of fixin on it.” Vedder described the fifth track, “Just Breathe,” as being “as close to a love song as we’ve ever gotten,” and said that the subject of the song is the happiest times of people’s lives when they should just take in the moment and “breathe for a minute.” In “Amongst the Waves,” Vedder tells us that “if not for love I would be drowning. I’ve seen it work both ways, but I am up riding high amongst the waves,” while “Supersonic” speaks of a person’s pure love for music.

The previous albums’ moods of anger and cynicism have given way to Backspacer’s hope and optimism, the two prevailing themes of Obama’s presidential campaign. Indeed, in an interview with Alan Cross, Vedder specifically credited Obama as the inspiration for the album’s hopeful lyrics.

This award may be premature and even misplaced, and while I certainly wouldn’t have selected him if given the chance, I can somewhat understand why others did. Through the simple act of his election and his rhetoric on foreign policy, Obama has already made significant strides in improving the perception of America in the world’s eye. He has made the world a more optimistic, more hopeful, and yes, more peaceful, place. He has won over foreign leaders such as French President Nicholas Sarkozy, who said the award marked “America’s return to the hearts of the world’s peoples,” and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who noted that “in a short time he has been able to set a new tone throughout the world and to create a readiness for dialogue.” He has even infused Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam with enough optimism to enable them to create an album as positive and rosy as Backspacer. And while that may not merit a Nobel Peace Prize, per se, it can certainly help us understand where the selection committee was coming from.

This article has been reprinted with the permission of the author. It originally appeared at The Vertex.

More on Barack Obama


Roger I. Abrams: StarCaps Anyone?

July 21st, 2009 admin No comments

You have undoubtedly heard about the litigation in Minnesota involving players on the Vikings who took StarCaps which contained the drug bumetanide, a substance said to mask the use of steroids which is banned by the National Football League. One problem (actually one of many problems with the case) is that the label for StarCaps did not list bumetanide as an ingredient. The NFL knew that StarCaps contained the substance, but it did not inform the players. StarCaps is an over-the-counter weight-loss diuretic that contains, it says, “Natural Extract Papaya & Garlic” that comes from the higher Andes of Peru. (Do papaya and garlic not grow in the lower Andes?) It may be a long way from Peru to Minneapolis, but StarCaps’ trail of woe has created full employment for sports and labor lawyers.
Vikings players Kevin Williams and Pat Williams tested positive last summer for the banned diuretic and appealed to the General Counsel of the NFL, Jeff Pash, who denied them relief and upheld their four-game suspensions. The players filed suit in state court which was later removed to federal court, partially dismissed, partially remanded to state court, and the NFL has appealed. This case makes the flea-flicker, fake punt, statue of liberty, hook-and-ladder and fumblerooski look as easy as a quarterback sneak.
The resulting litigation has been a sports law professor’s dream. It is filled with questions of the supremacy of federal law, collective bargaining, the rights of states to regulate aspects of drug testing, the role of a non-neutral “arbitrator” and that is just for starters. Wait until the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals gets involved. The dispute is important enough that this week, some interested parties requested from the Circuit Court the right to submit amicus briefs as “friends of the court.” These heavy hitters include Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. This makes the StarCaps dispute the Super Bowl of litigation.
The case is too complicated to discuss in a single blog. Let me focus on just two aspects of the soap opera. First of all, the court submissions indicate that the National Football League knew StarCaps contained bad stuff. (Actually, the combination of papaya and garlic sounds pretty vile, but apparently that does not bother the NFL.) Why would the League not informed its players of its discovery? Remember, the label did not indicate the presence of a banned substance, and the NFL would not have tested StarCaps unless it had some reason to believe someone was taking the stuff.
The League (and, presumably, the amici, who will likely be granted the opportunity to contribute their two cents) emphasizes the importance of having a no-fault, strict liability policy. As the NFL Policy states: “Players are responsible for what is in their bodies, and a positive result will not be excused because a player was unaware that he was taking a [banned] substance.” There is good reason for such an approach. When athletes are given the opportunity to explain the presence of a banned substance they have come up with a set of doozy excuses. A few days ago, French tennis pro Richard Gasquet had his two-year ban for a positive test for cocaine reduced to a two-month suspension by a tribunal panel of the International Tennis Federation when he “proved” that the coke came from a kiss from “Pamela” at a Miami South Beach hotspot named “Set.” The tribunal that bought his story “accepted his evidence that he kissed her at least seven times, each kiss lasting about five to ten seconds.” They blamed it all on “Pamela.” The NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL are afraid of more “Pamelas.”
The leagues are also rightfully concerned about a crazy-quilt of drug policies that could differ from state to state depending on the statutes of the particular jurisdiction. Minnesota has two statutes that the players say apply here. The Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (DATWA) contains mandatory procedures to insure reliable drug testing in the workplace and requires counseling and not discipline for a first offense. The Minnesota Consumable Products Act (CPA) prohibits employers from disciplining workers for ingesting “lawful consumable products…off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours.” If the state statutes applied, that would gut the drug testing and discipline procedures negotiated by the sports leagues and their unions.
Yet, the NFL comes to the StarCaps case with what lawyers would call “unclean hands.” If a neutral arbitrator had heard the case under a “just cause” provision, management’s questionable conduct in not notifying its players of the poison pill within StarCaps would certainly be a factor. The person who heard the “appeal” was not a neutral. Under the agreement, the case would be heard by the NFL’s General Counsel. Jeff Pash, the NFL’s longtime General Counsel, is one of the finest sports lawyers I know, but it is normally his job to represent management. His job here as “arbitrator” was to enforce the letter of the agreement reached by the NFL and the Players Association.
Of course, if a court sees Mr. Pash as “an arbitrator,” under federal law his award is not subject to review on the merits. Having served as a neutral for almost 35 years, I fully appreciate the importance of court abstention from second-guessing arbitrators. When the Supreme Court in 1960 established the independence and autonomy of labor arbitration, it likely did not have this kind of case in mind. On the other hand, Pash’s role was set forth in the agreement reached between the League and the Players Association, and that agreement is worthy of respect in court.
In any case, the manufacturer has now pulled StarCaps off the shelves, so you will have to get your Peruvian papaya and garlic somewhere else.


Categories: World Tags: ,

Sarkozy Scandal: Under Fire Over Claims He Paid For Opinion Polls

July 21st, 2009 admin No comments

The main French opposition party, the Socialists — delighted to have an issue to distract from their own internal back-stabbing — have accused the President of “scandalous collusion” with parts of the media.


Categories: World Tags: ,