(Marion Nestle, Food Politics, July 18, 2010)
[CLICK the above credit line for the full article]

So says a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO): GAO identified a variety of products that currently incorporate nanomaterials already available in commerce … [in] food and agriculture …The extent to which nanomaterials present a risk to human health and the environment depends on a combination of the toxicity of specific nanomaterials and the route and level of exposure to these materials. Although the body of research related to nanomaterials is growing, the current understanding of the risks posed by these materials is limited. . . . In the meantime, the European Food Safety Authority is preoccupied with issues related to the safety of food nanotechnology: The risk assessment framework for nanotechnology in Europe—like so much else connected to the technology—appears to be in its infancy but developing at a rapid pace … Nano knowledge gaps have led some to call for a ban on the use of nanomaterials in food products until their safety has been fully established. One area of concern is whether nanoparticles can migrate from packaging materials into foods. . . . In seeking to assess nanomaterials, the food safety body repeatedly used phrases such as “specific uncertainties”, “limited knowledge” and…”difficult to characterise, detect and measure” in relation to toxicokinetics and toxicology in food. Likely usage and exposure levels are also largely a mystery.  . . . The European Food Safety Authority says that lack of knowledge means that risk assessment of risk assessments must be done on a “cautious case-by-case approach.” . . . Last April, the European Parliament’s environment committee said nanotech products should be withdrawn from the market until more is known about their safety. In June, that committee added that nanotech foods should be assessed for safety before they are approved for use and labeled. . . . Doesn’t that sound reasonable? Let’s hope it’s not too late to put such constraints in place, and in the U.S., too.

(dazebao.org, July 13, 2010)
[CLICK the above credit line for the full article]

The huge oil slick could, in all probability, cause irreparable damage to the activity of thermal regulation of the Gulf Stream, with a domino effect on global climate of the planet. . . . This is what says a study published on the website of the Italian Geophysics by the Institute of Atmospheric Sciences Climate ISAC-CNR. The summary of the study, is signed by Gianlugi Zangari, a theoretical physicist, is born by the National Laboratories of Frascati, after careful observation, satellite in real time, the large area of concern. . . . According to the Italian scientist, Gianlugi Zangari, maps of sea surface velocity and height, indicating that the Loop Current is broken for the first time May 18, creating a reel clockwise. . . . » Continue reading “Italian Scientists Fear BP Gusher Damaged Gulf Stream”

July 15, 2010

(Dr. Joseph Mercola, Physician and author, July 6, 2010)
[CLICK the above credit line for the full article]

Aspartame is the most controversial food additive in history, and its approval for use in food was the most contested in FDA history. In the end, the artificial sweetener was approved, not on scientific grounds, but rather because of strong political and financial pressure. After all, aspartame was previously listed by the Pentagon as a biochemical warfare agent! . . . It’s hard to believe such a chemical would be allowed into the food supply, but it was, and it has been wreaking silent havoc with people’s health for the past 30 years. » Continue reading “America’s Deadliest Sweetener Betrays Millions, Then Hoodwinks You With Name Change”

The Future of Psychedelic and Medical Marijuana Research.

Psychedelic Science in the 21st Century – Andrew Weil M.D. from Teal Sievers on Vimeo.

(Stuart Fox, Popular Science, 03.30.2010)
[CLICK the above credit line for the full article]

In a move that could significantly alter the future of genetic medicine and the industry around it, a US District Court judge invalidated seven patents for human genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer, on the grounds that genes are discovered, not created. The ruling opens up challenges against the patents held by numerous companies on thousands of human genes, and jeopardizes an industry business model based on exclusive rights to gene treatment. . . . The case, Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, et al., reverses decades of rulings, including a 1980 Supreme Court decision upholding the patenting of artificial bacteria. In his opinion, Judge Robert Sweet decided that naturally occurring isolated genes are not legally distinct from entire genomes, which are protected from patent by law. Judge Sweet even went as far as calling the reasoning that deemed isolated genes legally distinct from entire genomes a “lawyer’s trick”.

(Andrew Hough, The Telegraph, 29 Mar 2010)
[CLICK the above credit line for the full article]

Bingeing on junk food is as addictive as smoking or taking drugs and could cause compulsive eating and obesity, a study has found.

American researchers found burgers, chips and sausages programmed a human brain into craving even more sugar, salt and fat laden food. . . . Scientists at the Scripps Research Institute in Florida found laboratory rats became addicted on a bad diet just like people who became dependent on cocaine and heroin. . . . the study, published online in Nature Neuroscience, suggests for the first time that our brains may react in the same way to junk food as it does to drugs. . . . “The new study explains what happens in the brain of these animals when they have easy access to high-calorie, high-fat food.” . . . He added: “It presents the most thorough and compelling evidence that drug addiction and obesity are based on the same underlying neurobiological mechanisms.” . . . The very same changes occur in the brains of rats that over consume cocaine or heroin, and are thought to play an important role in the development of compulsive drug use. . . . The scientists fed the rats a diet modelled after the type that contributes to human obesity easy to obtain high-calorie, high-fat foods. Soon after the experiments began, the animals began to bloat. . . . Latest figures show that one in four people in Britain are obese with married people twice as likely to become obese than their single counterparts. . . . Eight in 10 men and almost 7 in 10 women will be overweight or obese by 2020. . . . Cases of devastating health conditions like heart disease, diabetes and stroke will increase with the nation’s waistlines, the recent Government-commissioned Foresight report warned.

(David Edwards and Sahil Kapur, Raw Story, March 9, 2010)
[CLICK the above credit line for the full article]

“The congressman told Raw Story in January that Democrats “lost the initiative the minute that our party jumped into bed with the insurance companies.” He alleged that the proposals on the table would further escalate income inequality in the United States. ”$70 billion dollars a year, and no guarantees of any control over premiums, forcing people to buy private insurance, five consecutive years of double-digit premium increases.” . . . The proposal the White House and Democrats are coalescing around comprises subsidies for lower-income individuals and a mandate that they purchase insurance. It also bans insurers from dropping sick people from their plans or denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions. . . . An ardent proponent of a single-payer or Medicare-for-all system, Kucinich reiterated his view that the current template offers private insurers “a version of a bailout” and predicted they’ll continue “socking it to consumers.” . . . ”I told the president twice in two different meetings that I couldn’t support the bill if it didn’t have a robust public option and at least if it didn’t have something that was going to protect consumers from these rampant premium increases,” he added. . . . The Ohio congressman left no doubt that he plans to oppose the bill again, even if he were to cast the swing-vote. “If that sounded like a no, you’re correct,” he told guest host Lawrence O’Donnell, declaring the effort was like “building on sand.” . . . The congressman told Raw Story in January that Democrats “lost the initiative the minute that our party jumped into bed with the insurance companies.” He alleged that the proposals on the table would further escalate income inequality in the United States.

(psypressuk.com, Reviews & research in psychedelic literature)
[CLICK the above credit line for the full article]

Originally published in 2002 ‘Hallucinogens: A reader’ is a collection of psychedelic texts edited by Charles Grob, M.D. and includes contributions from such notables as Ralph Metzner and Terence McKenna. It covers a wide range of topics like society, shamanism and research and manages to avoid the pitfalls of being too topically restrictive, or too linguistically complex.

In his introduction Charles S. Grob takes a look at two threads that helped create the history of what we call the psychedelic movement. These two elements are characterized by their earliest exponents: Aldous Huxley and Timothy Leary. They amount to a different perspective on how those with the knowledge of psychedelics should proceed in attempting to ingratiate the experience into society as a legitimated, functioning and positive phenomena. . . . One of Terence McKenna more famous monologues ‘Psychedelic Society’ has been transcribed. . . . In amongst the widely known figureheads of the psychedelic movement included in this reader, like Albert Hoffman, Ralph Metzner and McKenna, there are several lesser known figures whose contributions are of real note. . . . Thomas Riedlinger does a wonderful exposition of two psychedelic novels, which are rarely classed as such: Jean-Paul Sartre’s ‘Nausea’ (1938,) with its mescaline hell, reflecting the authors own experiences and ‘Exploring Inner Space’ (1961) by “Jane Dunlap”, a pseudonym for the famous nutritionist Adelle Davis. Davis underwent a quest for spiritual enlightenment using LSD. . . . Scientific method, case studies and religious implications in science are all explored by writers like Rick Strassman, Gary Fisher and Jeremy Narby. As a reader ‘Hallucinogens’ truly fulfils its potential. Not only by reiterating knowledge in new contexts but by showing the variety and depth to the boundaries that the psychedelic movement has pushed out into in the last fifty years. A collection of texts, such as this, that carefully outlines the flight of psychedelic research is a valuable tool.