yes I seen it. Its all about money. It always is. You saw that in the movie.
my biggest point about GMO's is all people like me want is to label them so we can choose whether or not we want to eat poison. If someone wants to ignore GMO's are dangerous, then at least they know. Same as cigarettes, GMO foods should state that this food causes cancer. I don't care if you smoke or eat poisoned food but you should have the choice.
And there are a lot of unhealthy people in third world countries suffering from disease and famine, because they have bought into the false theories of us wanting to poison them.
from the article i posted for those that didnt want to read, ...
.
GMO's are implicated in increased prevalence rates of a number of chronic diseases (see article) SINCE GMO inception, 1994. AGAIN, their presence in a diet does NOT mean disease expression is 100%. If you suffer from chronic disease and want to get to the root CAUSE, rather than treat symptoms via pharmaceuticals (pills) than consider changing quality of FOOD. Functional medicine is showing us that disease can be eliminated thru changing diet (ex., celiac disease, leaky gut syndrome and its array of disease expressions; changing gut microbiome)
i can't post charts from the article, anyway, no one will even press the link, why the hell did i bother to provide the link?........
'Leaky gut and immune responseIf toxins and bacteria are leaking into the abdominal cavity, the body will respond as if it is underattack. In addition, according to Dr. Pusztai, “The body will regard any genetically modified substancecoming into the digestive system as foreign [because of its mutated DNA].” The body responds toforeign substances by triggering an immune response. This can be instant, as in an allergic reaction, orit can be a slower, cell-mediated response. Food allergies and immune diseases of all kinds are alsosoaring. Incidence and prevalence data trends are unavailable because many were rare until recently(fibromyalgia, celiacs disease). Other immune diseases that are on the rise are: asthma, eczema, lupus,Addison's disease, Grave's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, and psoriaticarthritis. The final graph is a plot of the hospital discharge diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis alongwith the number of acres of Bt corn planted. Rheumatoid arthritis is rising slowly, while the number ofBt crops is rising rapidly, but there is a large increase from 2007 to 2010 of rheumatoid arthritisdiagnoses. Chronic immune disorders take a long time to develop and there are likely other factors.'
26 nations have BANNED GMO. At the very least, provide a label on food products. You want to eat it? go to town......
.GMO's are implicated in increased prevalence rates of a number of chronic diseases (see article) SINCE GMO inception, 1994. AGAIN, their presence in a diet does NOT mean disease expression is 100%. If you suffer from chronic disease and want to get to the root CAUSE, rather than treat symptoms via pharmaceuticals (pills) than consider changing quality of FOOD. Functional medicine is showing us that disease can be eliminated thru changing diet (ex., celiac disease, leaky gut syndrome and its array of disease expressions; changing gut microbiome)
i can't post charts from the article, anyway, no one will even press the link, why the hell did i bother to provide the link?...
.....'Leaky gut and immune responseIf toxins and bacteria are leaking into the abdominal cavity, the body will respond as if it is underattack. In addition, according to Dr. Pusztai, “The body will regard any genetically modified substancecoming into the digestive system as foreign [because of its mutated DNA].” The body responds toforeign substances by triggering an immune response. This can be instant, as in an allergic reaction, orit can be a slower, cell-mediated response. Food allergies and immune diseases of all kinds are alsosoaring. Incidence and prevalence data trends are unavailable because many were rare until recently(fibromyalgia, celiacs disease). Other immune diseases that are on the rise are: asthma, eczema, lupus,Addison's disease, Grave's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, and psoriaticarthritis. The final graph is a plot of the hospital discharge diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis alongwith the number of acres of Bt corn planted. Rheumatoid arthritis is rising slowly, while the number ofBt crops is rising rapidly, but there is a large increase from 2007 to 2010 of rheumatoid arthritisdiagnoses. Chronic immune disorders take a long time to develop and there are likely other factors.'
26 nations have BANNED GMO. At the very least, provide a label on food products. You want to eat it? go to town......
from the article i posted for those that didnt want to read, ...
GMO's are implicated in increased prevalence rates of a number of chronic diseases (see article) SINCE GMO inception, 1994. AGAIN, their presence in a diet does NOT mean disease expression is 100%. If you suffer from chronic disease and want to get to the root CAUSE, rather than treat symptoms via pharmaceuticals (pills) than consider changing quality of FOOD. Functional medicine is showing us that disease can be eliminated thru changing diet (ex., celiac disease, leaky gut syndrome and its array of disease expressions; changing gut microbiome)
i can't post charts from the article, anyway, no one will even press the link, why the hell did i bother to provide the link?...
'Leaky gut and immune responseIf toxins and bacteria are leaking into the abdominal cavity, the body will respond as if it is underattack. In addition, according to Dr. Pusztai, “The body will regard any genetically modified substancecoming into the digestive system as foreign [because of its mutated DNA].” The body responds toforeign substances by triggering an immune response. This can be instant, as in an allergic reaction, orit can be a slower, cell-mediated response. Food allergies and immune diseases of all kinds are alsosoaring. Incidence and prevalence data trends are unavailable because many were rare until recently(fibromyalgia, celiacs disease). Other immune diseases that are on the rise are: asthma, eczema, lupus,Addison's disease, Grave's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, and psoriaticarthritis. The final graph is a plot of the hospital discharge diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis alongwith the number of acres of Bt corn planted. Rheumatoid arthritis is rising slowly, while the number ofBt crops is rising rapidly, but there is a large increase from 2007 to 2010 of rheumatoid arthritisdiagnoses. Chronic immune disorders take a long time to develop and there are likely other factors.'
26 nations have BANNED GMO. At the very least, provide a label on food products. You want to eat it? go to town......
Have you researched that? There are heavy regulations on growing it in some nations, and partial bans on certain products. But all those Countries do allow some GMO's to be imported in some form, and some of the countries on your list even grow some GMO. I think Kenya is the only country that has banned GMO's entirely.
And as far as having labels, what so hard about buying the products that have the organic label. Whole Foods, Trader Joes, and most grocery stores label their organic stuff. Putting a label on it that says poison, or causes cancer, isn't going to happen.
From Popular Science
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked
Top ten GMO Myths debunked
[h=3]1) Claim: Genetic engineering is a radical technology.[/h]Humans have been manipulating the genes of crops for millennia by selectively breeding plants with desirable traits. (A perfect example: the thousands of apple varieties.) Virtually all of our food crops have been genetically modified in some way. In that sense, GMOs are not radical at all. But the technique does differ dramatically from traditional plant breeding.
Here's how it works: Scientists extract a bit of DNA from an organism, modify or make copies of it, and incorporate it into the genome of the same species or a second one. They do this by either using bacteria to deliver the new genetic material, or by shooting tiny DNA-coated metal pellets into plant cells with a gene gun. While scientists can't control exactly where the foreign DNA will land, they can repeat the experiment until they get a genome with the right information in the right place.
That process allows for greater precision. "With GMOs, we know the genetic information we are using, we know where it goes in the genome, and we can see if it is near an allergen or a toxin or if it is going to turn [another gene] off," says Peggy G. Lemaux, a plant biologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "That is not true when you cross widely different varieties in traditional breeding."
[h=3]2) Claim: GMOs are too new for us to know if they are dangerous.[/h]It depends on how you define new. Genetically engineered plants first appeared in the lab about 30 years ago and became a commercial product in 1994. Since then, more than 1,700 peer-reviewed safety studies have been published, including five lengthy reports from the National Research Council, that focus on human health and the environment. The scientific consensus is that existing GMOs are no more or less risky than conventional crops.
[h=3]3) Claim: Farmers can't replant genetically modified seeds.[/h]So-called terminator genes, which can make seeds sterile, never made it out of the patent office in the 1990s. Seed companies do require farmers to sign agreements that prohibit replanting in order to ensure annual sales, but Kent Bradford, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, says large-scale commercial growers typically don't save seeds anyway. Corn is a hybrid of two lines from the same species, so its seeds won't pass on the right traits to the next generation. Cotton and soy seeds could be saved, but most farmers don't bother. "The quality deteriorates—they get weeds and so on—and it's not a profitable practice," Bradford says.
[h=3]4) Claim: We don't need GMOs—there are other ways to feed the world.[/h]GMOs alone probably won't solve the planet's food problems. But with climate change and population growth threatening food supplies, genetically modified crops could significantly boost crop output. "GMOs are just one tool to make sure the world is food-secure when we add two billion more people by 2050," says Pedro Sanchez, director of the Agriculture and Food Security Center at Columbia University's Earth Institute. "It's not the only answer, and it is not essential, but it is certainly one good thing in our arsenal."
[h=3]5) Claim: GMOs cause allergies, cancer, and other health problems.[/h]Many people worry that genetic engineering introduces hazardous proteins, particularly allergens and toxins, into the food chain. It's a reasonable concern: Theoretically, it's possible for a new gene to express a protein that provokes an immune response. That's why biotech companies consult with the Food and Drug Administration about potential GMO foods and perform extensive allergy and toxicity testing. Those tests are voluntary but commonplace; if they're not done, the FDA can block the products.
One frequently cited study, published in 2012 by researchers from the University of Caen in France, claimed that one of Monsanto's corn GMOs caused tumors in lab rats. But the study was widely discredited because of faulty test methods, and the journal retracted it in 2013. More recently, researchers from the University of Perugia in Italy published a review of 1,783 GMO safety tests; 770 examined the health impact on humans or animals. They found no evidence that the foods are dangerous.
[h=3]6) Claim: All research on GMOs has been funded by Big Ag.[/h]This simply isn't true. Over the past decade, hundreds of independent researchers have published peer-reviewed safety studies. At least a dozen medical and scientific groups worldwide, including the World Health Organization and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have stated that the GMOs currently approved for market are safe.
[h=3]7) Claim: Genetically modified crops cause farmers to overuse pesticides and herbicides.[/h]This claim requires a little parsing. Two relevant GMOs dominate the market. The first enables crops to express a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is toxic to certain insects. It's also the active ingredient in pesticides used by organic farmers. Bt crops have dramatically reduced reliance on chemical insecticides in some regions, says Bruce Tabashnik, a University of Arizona entomologist.
The second allows crops to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate so that farmers can spray entire fields more liberally yet kill only weeds. Glyphosate use has skyrocketed in the U.S. since these GMOs were introduced in 1996. But glyphosate is among the mildest herbicides available, with a toxicity 25 times less than caffeine. Its use has decreased reliance on more toxic alternatives, such as atrazine.
[h=3]8) Claim: GMOs create super-insects and super-weeds.[/h]If farmers rely too heavily on Bt or glyphosate, then pesticide resistance is inevitable, says Tabashnik. That's evolution at work, and it's analogous to antibiotics creating hardier bacteria. It is an increasing problem and could lead to the return of harsher chemicals. The solution, he says, is to practice integrated pest management, which includes rotating crops. The same goes for any type of farming.
[h=3]9) Claim: GMOs harm beneficial insect species.[/h]This has been been partly debunked. Bt insecticides attach to proteins found in some insects' guts, killing select species. For most insects, a field of Bt crops is safer than one sprayed with an insecticide that kills indiscriminately. But monarch butterflies produce the same proteins as one of Bt's target pests, and a 1999 Cornell University lab experiment showed that feeding the larvae milkweed coated in Bt corn pollen could kill them. Five studies published in 2001, however, found that monarchs aren't exposed to toxic levels of Bt pollen in the wild.
A 2012 paper from Iowa State University and the University of Minnesota suggested glyphosate-tolerant GMOs are responsible for monarchs' recent population decline. The herbicide kills milkweed (the larvae's only food source) in and near crops where it's applied.
[h=3]10) Claim: Modified genes spread to other crops and wild plants, upending the ecosystem.[/h]The first part could certainly be true: Plants swap genetic material all the time by way of pollen, which carries plant DNA—including any genetically engineered snippets.
According to Wayne Parrott, a crop geneticist at the University of Georgia, the risk for neighboring farms is relatively low. For starters, it's possible to reduce the chance of cross-pollination by staggering planting schedules, so that fields pollinate during different windows of time. (Farmers with adjacent GMO and organic fields already do this.) And if some GMO pollen does blow into an organic field, it won't necessarily nullify organic status. Even foods that bear the Non-GMO Project label can be 0.5 percent GMO by dry weight.
As for a GMO infiltrating wild plants, the offspring's survival partly depends on whether the trait provides an adaptive edge. Genes that help wild plants survive might spread, whereas those that, say, boost vitamin A content might remain at low levels or fizzle out entirely.
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked
Top ten GMO Myths debunked
[h=3]1) Claim: Genetic engineering is a radical technology.[/h]Humans have been manipulating the genes of crops for millennia by selectively breeding plants with desirable traits. (A perfect example: the thousands of apple varieties.) Virtually all of our food crops have been genetically modified in some way. In that sense, GMOs are not radical at all. But the technique does differ dramatically from traditional plant breeding.
Here's how it works: Scientists extract a bit of DNA from an organism, modify or make copies of it, and incorporate it into the genome of the same species or a second one. They do this by either using bacteria to deliver the new genetic material, or by shooting tiny DNA-coated metal pellets into plant cells with a gene gun. While scientists can't control exactly where the foreign DNA will land, they can repeat the experiment until they get a genome with the right information in the right place.
That process allows for greater precision. "With GMOs, we know the genetic information we are using, we know where it goes in the genome, and we can see if it is near an allergen or a toxin or if it is going to turn [another gene] off," says Peggy G. Lemaux, a plant biologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "That is not true when you cross widely different varieties in traditional breeding."
[h=3]2) Claim: GMOs are too new for us to know if they are dangerous.[/h]It depends on how you define new. Genetically engineered plants first appeared in the lab about 30 years ago and became a commercial product in 1994. Since then, more than 1,700 peer-reviewed safety studies have been published, including five lengthy reports from the National Research Council, that focus on human health and the environment. The scientific consensus is that existing GMOs are no more or less risky than conventional crops.
[h=3]3) Claim: Farmers can't replant genetically modified seeds.[/h]So-called terminator genes, which can make seeds sterile, never made it out of the patent office in the 1990s. Seed companies do require farmers to sign agreements that prohibit replanting in order to ensure annual sales, but Kent Bradford, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, says large-scale commercial growers typically don't save seeds anyway. Corn is a hybrid of two lines from the same species, so its seeds won't pass on the right traits to the next generation. Cotton and soy seeds could be saved, but most farmers don't bother. "The quality deteriorates—they get weeds and so on—and it's not a profitable practice," Bradford says.
[h=3]4) Claim: We don't need GMOs—there are other ways to feed the world.[/h]GMOs alone probably won't solve the planet's food problems. But with climate change and population growth threatening food supplies, genetically modified crops could significantly boost crop output. "GMOs are just one tool to make sure the world is food-secure when we add two billion more people by 2050," says Pedro Sanchez, director of the Agriculture and Food Security Center at Columbia University's Earth Institute. "It's not the only answer, and it is not essential, but it is certainly one good thing in our arsenal."
[h=3]5) Claim: GMOs cause allergies, cancer, and other health problems.[/h]Many people worry that genetic engineering introduces hazardous proteins, particularly allergens and toxins, into the food chain. It's a reasonable concern: Theoretically, it's possible for a new gene to express a protein that provokes an immune response. That's why biotech companies consult with the Food and Drug Administration about potential GMO foods and perform extensive allergy and toxicity testing. Those tests are voluntary but commonplace; if they're not done, the FDA can block the products.
One frequently cited study, published in 2012 by researchers from the University of Caen in France, claimed that one of Monsanto's corn GMOs caused tumors in lab rats. But the study was widely discredited because of faulty test methods, and the journal retracted it in 2013. More recently, researchers from the University of Perugia in Italy published a review of 1,783 GMO safety tests; 770 examined the health impact on humans or animals. They found no evidence that the foods are dangerous.
[h=3]6) Claim: All research on GMOs has been funded by Big Ag.[/h]This simply isn't true. Over the past decade, hundreds of independent researchers have published peer-reviewed safety studies. At least a dozen medical and scientific groups worldwide, including the World Health Organization and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have stated that the GMOs currently approved for market are safe.
[h=3]7) Claim: Genetically modified crops cause farmers to overuse pesticides and herbicides.[/h]This claim requires a little parsing. Two relevant GMOs dominate the market. The first enables crops to express a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is toxic to certain insects. It's also the active ingredient in pesticides used by organic farmers. Bt crops have dramatically reduced reliance on chemical insecticides in some regions, says Bruce Tabashnik, a University of Arizona entomologist.
The second allows crops to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate so that farmers can spray entire fields more liberally yet kill only weeds. Glyphosate use has skyrocketed in the U.S. since these GMOs were introduced in 1996. But glyphosate is among the mildest herbicides available, with a toxicity 25 times less than caffeine. Its use has decreased reliance on more toxic alternatives, such as atrazine.
[h=3]8) Claim: GMOs create super-insects and super-weeds.[/h]If farmers rely too heavily on Bt or glyphosate, then pesticide resistance is inevitable, says Tabashnik. That's evolution at work, and it's analogous to antibiotics creating hardier bacteria. It is an increasing problem and could lead to the return of harsher chemicals. The solution, he says, is to practice integrated pest management, which includes rotating crops. The same goes for any type of farming.
[h=3]9) Claim: GMOs harm beneficial insect species.[/h]This has been been partly debunked. Bt insecticides attach to proteins found in some insects' guts, killing select species. For most insects, a field of Bt crops is safer than one sprayed with an insecticide that kills indiscriminately. But monarch butterflies produce the same proteins as one of Bt's target pests, and a 1999 Cornell University lab experiment showed that feeding the larvae milkweed coated in Bt corn pollen could kill them. Five studies published in 2001, however, found that monarchs aren't exposed to toxic levels of Bt pollen in the wild.
A 2012 paper from Iowa State University and the University of Minnesota suggested glyphosate-tolerant GMOs are responsible for monarchs' recent population decline. The herbicide kills milkweed (the larvae's only food source) in and near crops where it's applied.
[h=3]10) Claim: Modified genes spread to other crops and wild plants, upending the ecosystem.[/h]The first part could certainly be true: Plants swap genetic material all the time by way of pollen, which carries plant DNA—including any genetically engineered snippets.
According to Wayne Parrott, a crop geneticist at the University of Georgia, the risk for neighboring farms is relatively low. For starters, it's possible to reduce the chance of cross-pollination by staggering planting schedules, so that fields pollinate during different windows of time. (Farmers with adjacent GMO and organic fields already do this.) And if some GMO pollen does blow into an organic field, it won't necessarily nullify organic status. Even foods that bear the Non-GMO Project label can be 0.5 percent GMO by dry weight.
As for a GMO infiltrating wild plants, the offspring's survival partly depends on whether the trait provides an adaptive edge. Genes that help wild plants survive might spread, whereas those that, say, boost vitamin A content might remain at low levels or fizzle out entirely.
certainly one good thing in our arsenal."
'5) Claim: GMOs cause allergies, cancer, and other health problems.
Many people worry that genetic engineering introduces hazardous proteins, particularly allergens and toxins, into the food chain. It's a reasonable concern: Theoretically, it's possible for a new gene to express a protein that provokes an immune response. That's why biotech companies consult with the Food and Drug Administration about potential GMO foods and perform extensive allergy and toxicity testing. Those tests are voluntary but commonplace; if they're not done, the FDA can block the products.'
debunked? LMFAO
at least the author was kind to write this;
Theoretically, it's possible for a new gene to express a protein that provokes an immune response....... He just didn't have it in him to take the next leap--- and that is, IF IF GMO's are able to cause leaky gut syndrome then they most definetely are implicated in the RISING RATES of; obesity, diabetes, allergies, auto immune disease
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/18/us-obesity-us-idUSBRE88H0RA20120918
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/11/15/us-diabetes-rates-soaring-cdc
http://www.foodallergy.org/home
http://www.alternet.org/story/80129...bodies_gone_haywire_in_a_world_out_of_balance
'5) Claim: GMOs cause allergies, cancer, and other health problems.
Many people worry that genetic engineering introduces hazardous proteins, particularly allergens and toxins, into the food chain. It's a reasonable concern: Theoretically, it's possible for a new gene to express a protein that provokes an immune response. That's why biotech companies consult with the Food and Drug Administration about potential GMO foods and perform extensive allergy and toxicity testing. Those tests are voluntary but commonplace; if they're not done, the FDA can block the products.'
debunked? LMFAO
at least the author was kind to write this;
Theoretically, it's possible for a new gene to express a protein that provokes an immune response......
. He just didn't have it in him to take the next leap--- and that is, IF IF GMO's are able to cause leaky gut syndrome then they most definetely are implicated in the RISING RATES of; obesity, diabetes, allergies, auto immune diseasehttp://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/18/us-obesity-us-idUSBRE88H0RA20120918
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/11/15/us-diabetes-rates-soaring-cdc
http://www.foodallergy.org/home
http://www.alternet.org/story/80129...bodies_gone_haywire_in_a_world_out_of_balance
same company doing GMO's made this and the government told us its safe just as they are doing now with GMO's. Its all about money. They make you sick and then sell you a pill to make you better. Don't kid yourself. The same government that lied to you about WMD so they can go to war. It's all about money boys. You are just an experiment to them.
<header class="entry-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; color: rgb(68, 68, 68); font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 16px; line-height: 26px;">The Shocking Story of How Aspartame Became Legal
February 21, 2014
</header>Did you know that Aspartame was banned by the FDA twice? How is this product legal now?
The bittersweet argument over whether Aspartame is safe or not has been going on for a long time.
On one side we have medical evidence that suggests we should avoid using it and on the other side we lean on the FDA’s approval that suggests it is safe.
You would think that something so widely used and so well accepted would have quite the pristine story leading to its acceptance. But that just isn’t the case as you will soon discover after reading this post.
How Aspartame Became Legal
Born out of accident.
In the mid 1960′s a chemist working for the company by the name of of G.D. Searle accidentally created aspartame in a quest to produce a cure for stomach ulcers. Searle puts aspartame through some testing procedures and eventually gets approval by the FDA.
Unfortunately, the testing process was among the worst. Not long after approval, the dangers of aspartame brought G.D. Searle under major fire.
In fact: Aspartame triggered the first criminal investigation of a manufacturer put into place by the FDA in 1977.
In 1980 the FDA banned aspartame from use after having 3 independent scientist study the artificial sweetener. Why?
Because they found that aspartame came with a high danger of inducing brain tumors.
Brain tumors: Bad. Aspartame banned by the FDA.
In January of 1981 Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, stated in a sales meeting that he was going to “call in his markers” and make a push to get aspartame approved. That month Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President of the United States. His transition team included Rumsfeld who hand picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.
Within a couple of months, Hayes appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the claims on aspartame. In a 3 – 2 decision, the panel upheld the original ban, stating that the artificial sweetener was unsafe.
Aspartame: Banned twice by the FDA.
Despite the panel’s decision, Hayes later installed a sixth member on the commission who voted in favor of the making aspartame legal. The vote was now deadlocked.
So what happened?
Hayes personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor. (Keep in mind that Dr. Hayes, a pharmacologist had no previous experience with food additives before becoming the FDA Director.)
On July 18, 1981 Hayes officially approved the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener in dry goods. (How’s this for a kicker: In 1983 Hayes later left his post at the FDA amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors. BUT, just before leaving office in scandal, Hayes approved the use of aspartame in beverages.)
The icing on the cake: In 1985 Searle was absorbed by Monsanto. Donald Rumsfeld reportedly received a $12 million bonus. And the sad tale of fake food and experimentation on the human race continued onward.
Don't cut the apples and it is easy to tell.
I usually can not tell until I can look at a whole apple or I can wait until I see how I feel afterwards. Regular apple always make my stomach hurt. Organic apples never do. And it is not a mental thing, has been the case long before I ate organic foods. Any fruits with skin on them you need to go organic. It's called the clean 15 and the dirty dozen. Look it up
although I feel the FDA's intentions are good at heart, their list of colossal fuck ups isn't a short one....
. Vioxx is rather recent, as if the world needed yet another NSAID, lol;"Cause for recall:
increased risk of heart attack and stroke; linked to about 27,785 heart attacks or sudden cardiac deaths between May 20, 1999 and 2003
Ads for Vioxx features Olympic gold medalists Dorothy Hamill and Bruce Jenner. Vioxx was prescribed to more than 20 million people"
