Third Roundup-Cancer Lawsuit Exposes Cozy Relationship Between the EPA and Monsanto

By Derrick Broze

A third lawsuit related to claims that Monsanto’s Roundup causes cancer has revealed new details about the cozy relationship between the biotech giant and U.S. regulators.

On Monday, Monsanto Co. corporate spokesman William Reeves admitted the corporation has regularly communicated with U.S. regulatory agencies regarding reviews of the controversial Roundup herbicide. Reeves denied that Monsanto had given the agencies orders to follow. Reeves’ testimony came about during the latest lawsuit against biotech giant Monsanto, as Alva and Alberta Pilliod fight to prove that Roundup caused their cancer.

The Pilliods are both living with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after spraying the herbicide Roundup on their properties for nearly 30 years. The septuagenarian couple were diagnosed with the most common form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, in 2011 and 2015. Now the couple is seeking damages related to their use of Roundup after recent studies have linked the world’s most popular herbicide to cancer.

Courthouse News reported on the latest developments in the case:

The text messages show that on June 18, 2015, Monsanto scientist Eric Sachs sent a text message to former EPA toxicologist Mary Manibusan, looking for help finding a contact in the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Sachs was looking to communicate with someone in relation to the agency’s ongoing work developing a toxicological profile of glyphosate, Roundup’s main ingredient. The ATSDR had begun working on the profile after the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research concluded that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

In another text, Manibusan told Dan Jenkins, Monsanto’s liaison to U.S. regulatory agencies like the EPA, that he may need help “trying to do everything we can to keep from having a domestic IARC occur with this group,” in reference to the ATSDR. By June 23, 2015, Jenkins wrote to his Monsanto colleagues alerting them that Jack Housenger, director of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, would put a hold on the report.  “ATSDR Director and Branch Chief have promised Jack Housenger (Director of the US Office of Pesticide Programs) to put their report ‘on hold’ until after EPA releases its preliminary risk assessment (PRA) for glyphosate,” Jenkins wrote.

When questioned about these texts by the Pilliods’ lawyers, Reeves confirmed the text messages were authentic, but stated, “I never heard anyone at the EPA say they were going to tell ATSDR what to do.”

The testimony from Reeves comes a week after Dr. Dennis Weisenburger testified that years of spraying Roundup likely caused the Pilliods’ lymphoma. Dr. Weisenburger testified that Alberta used Roundup an estimated 279 times, and Al 729 times—both without wearing protective equipment.“It’s not a hard call,” Weisenburger said on the witness stand, stating that using Roundup more than two days per year doubles the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma. “It’s the intensity of exposure that’s more important than the length.”

The Pilliods’ trial is expected to wrap up in the coming weeks, with Monsanto’s lawyers beginning their cross examination next week.

The case is the third lawsuit brought against Monsanto in the last two years. In 2018, a California jury found that Monsanto’s Roundup contributed to cancer in DeWayne Johnson, a former school groundskeeper. In that case, evidence of corporate misconduct played a key role in the jury’s decision. In August 2018, Johnson was awarded $289 million after a jury found that Monsanto failed to notify him and other consumers of the dangers of Roundup. Additionally, a jury in San Francisco recently found that Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer played a significant role in contributing to 70-year-old Edwin Hardeman’s cancer. Hardeman used Roundup on his 56-acre Sonoma County property for decades before he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2015. The unanimous verdict concluded a trial that may determine the future of thousands of similar lawsuits filed against biotechnology giant Monsanto.

Stay tuned to The Mind Unleashed for updates on this lawsuit against Monsanto.

Derrick is the founder of TCRN.

This article was sourced from The Mind Unleashed.

Source

Carl’s Jr To Debut CBD-Infused Burger On 4/20 That Costs $4.20

By Amanda Froelich

Each day, more people choose to supplement with CBD. This is likely because the component of the cannabis plant (which is non-psychoactive, unlike THC) has been proven to benefit a variety of ailments — from cancer to Alzheimer’s. The problem is, CBD remains illegal in many states and countries. As a result, the use of it still holds a stigma.

The public’s perception of cannabis is rapidly changing, however. This was made evident when last week, the burger chain Carl’s Jr announced that it will be celebrating 4/20 (or the “stoner’s holiday”) by debuting a CBD-infused burger.

According to The Independent, the Rocky Mountain High: CheeseBurger Delight (CBD) features two 100 percent charbroiled beef patties, pickled jalapeños, pepper jack cheese and Crisscut fries. Reportedly, it will be topped with a special hemp-based CBD oil-infused version of Carl’s Jr signature Santa Fe Sauce.

The special will only be available at one location in Denver, Colorado. Furthermore, it will only last the day of 4/20. However, cannabis enthusiasts can visit the Carl’s Jr restaurant located at 4050 Colorado Blvd in Denver, Colorado and purchase the special for just $4.20. If it turns out to be a hit, Carl’s Jr might make it a permanent menu item.

To create the CBD sauce, the chain partnered with the local Colorado company Bluebird Botanicals for its hemp-derived oil. Consuming CBD does not result in a change to mood or perception. Its most notable benefits are relaxation and pain-relief.

“From our early introduction into plant-based options to bringing the rare indulgence of truffles to our menu with the new Bacon Truffle Angus Burger, our customers have come to expect innovative and unique menu offerings, and we’re thrilled to be the first quick service restaurant to be testing CBD infused options,” said Patty Trevino, senior vice president of brand marketing at Carl’s Jr.

What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news!


Amanda Froelich — I’m an RHN, plant-based chef, freelance writer with 6+ years of experience, Reiki master therapist, world traveler and enthusiast of everything to do with animal rights, sustainability, cannabis and conscious living. I share healthy recipes at Bloom for Life and cannabis-infused treats at My Stoned Kitchen. Read More stories by Amanda Froelich

IMAGE CREDIT: Carl’s Jr.

This article was sourced from Truth Theory.

Source

Roundup, Monsanto, Cancer, Golf Courses, Hidden Secrets

By Jon Rappoport

There are 34,000 golf courses in the world. They make beautiful pictures. But what keeps the grass of the fairways and greens so uniform and undisturbed by weeds?

Chemical herbicides. One of the herbicide is Roundup, manufactured by Monsanto, the giant corporation owned by Bayer.

It’s now common knowledge that a link has been drawn between Roundup and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. “The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer…decided in 2015 that glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’.” (Mother Jones, March 14, 2019)

The research on the Monsanto pesticide Roundup is far from a finished product. Is it possible that Roundup causes other forms of cancer—brain, colon, and blood, for example? It will be hard to prove, in part because Monsanto can produced a hundred studies that contradict each lone study that says Yes.

But where are the golfers who have cancer? Nowhere, correct? Let’s find out.

“After the death of his [golf-playing] father, from the blood cancer Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, filmmaker Andrew Nisker starts hunting for answers to his many questions about why this particular cancer, and where it came from. His search, to his surprise, takes him into the manicured world of golf. In this world of pearl white bunkers, and putting greens that look and feel like velvet, Andrew discovers that these ‘greenspaces’ are anything but. There’s a lot more than nature at work creating these perfect carpets. At a golf industry trade show he sees the array of chemicals on offer to achieve that championship perfection. To his surprise, he hears at the show that golfers have consistently shown resistance to caring about any health or environmental impacts of their sport.”

“Andrew forms a bond with a sportscaster in Pittsburgh who is blaming golf course pesticides for the cancer death of his own father, a golf course superintendent.”

“As he follows up on his hunt to find out more about pesticide use on golf courses, Andrew asks can golfers themselves learn to kick the chemical habit? He’s convinced that if golfers knew what goes into maintaining the artificial beauty they play on, they’d learn to love dandelions a little more.” (Dad and the Dandelions, CBC TV, March 2, 2017)

A recent lawsuit involved Roundup as a cause of lymphoma: “The groundskeeper who won a massive civil suit against Bayer’s Monsanto claiming that the weedkiller Roundup caused his cancer has agreed to accept $78 million, after a judge substantially reduced the jury’s original $289 million award.”

“Dewayne ‘Lee’ Johnson, a Northern Californian groundskeeper and pest-control manager, was 42 when he developed a strange rash that would lead to a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in August 2014.”

“His groundskeeper duties included mixing and spraying hundreds of gallons of Roundup, the company’s glyphosate-containing weedkiller product, court records say.” (NPR, November 1, 2018)

Buckle up.

Australian professional golfer Jarrod Lyle has died after a long battle with cancer [leukemia], his wife announced Wednesday. He was 36…Last week, Lyle and his family announced that he had decided to end his treatment for acute myeloid leukemia and would undergo palliative care at his home.” (Fox News, 8/8/18)

“Fifty-one female professional golfers and 142 female amateur golfers were evaluated for skin cancer and skin cancer risk…Four of the professionals had already developed basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Their average age was 25.5 years. Eleven amateurs also developed BCC…” (Skin Cancer in Professional and Amateur Female Golfers, Phys Sportsmed. 1985 Aug) Was the cause sun exposure? Herbicides?

“In 2008, not long after playing in his first Champions Tour tournament, [Seve] Ballesteros fell ill in Spain. He was diagnosed with a brain tumor and eventually underwent four surgeries to try to remove the cancer. Ballesteros died on May 7, 2011, at the age of 54.” (ThoughtCo, 9/18/18)

[Heather] Farr was a terrific amateur golfer who never really got the chance to become a great LPGA Tour player. She died of breast cancer (that widely metastasized) at the age of 28 in 1993.” (ThoughtCo, 9/18/18)

“Once dubbed one of the world’s sexiest men by People magazine, Adam Scott looked a bit more garish after a procedure in 2011 to remove a Basil Cell Carcinoma, a form of non-melanoma skin cancer, from his face…A number of players have had varying degrees of battles with skin cancer…Rory Sabbatini, Brian Davis, Aron Price, among others, have all battled the disease…” (PGATour.com, 6/17/14) Sun exposure? Herbicides?

“Professional golfer Tom Lehman understands the importance of detecting cancer early. At 35, he was diagnosed with stage I colon cancer…* (USA Today, 6/26/18)

“Bruce Lietzke, a pro golfer who won 13 Professional Golfer’s Association Tour events, died on Saturday after a year-long battle with brain cancer.” (AJC, 7/28/18)

“[Pro golfer Randy Jones’ 2011] punch biopsy turned out to be melanoma.” (mdanderson.org, 9/13/16)

“A former LPGA Tour member, Shelley Hamlin died on October 15 [2018] at the age of 69 after a long and courageous battle with [breast] cancer.” (golfweek.com, 12/19/18)

“Phil Rodgers, a five-time PGA Tour winner and noted golf instructor, died on June 26 age 80 after a 15-year battle with leukemia.” (golfweek.com, 12/19/18)

“Charismatic Australian golfer Ian Stanley, who was a prolific winner on his home tour before making his mark on the European seniors circuit, died in July at age 69. He had battled cancer for some time.” (golfweek.com, 12/19/18)

“…professional golfer Boo Weekley went public on Thursday in revealing the cause of his prolonged absence from the PGA Tour…discomfort in his right shoulder was revealed to be cancer…” (Pensacola News Journal, 2/15/19)

“Forrest Fezler’s career path in golf included 12 years on the PGA Tour…Fezler, a Californian by birth who settled in Tallahassee, died Friday after battling brain cancer. He was 69.” (Tallahassee Democrat, (12/21/18)

“[In July of 2006], it was discovered that famous pro golfer, Billy Mayfair, “had testicular cancer.” (Coping with Cancer, undated)

A PGA player [Joel Dahmen] who battled [testicular] cancer and lost his mom to the disease is moving into his dream home in Scottsdale…” (azfamily.com, 5/29/18)

Before you jump to the conclusion that exposure to the sun is responsible for the majority of golf-cancers, think about this statistic: “…the New York State Attorney General’s office published a report entitled Toxic Fairways, a widely cited study of pesticide use on 52 Long Island, New York golf courses. The report, which was particularly concerned with the potential for groundwater contamination, concluded that these golf courses applied about 50,000 pounds of pesticides in one year, or four to seven times the average amount of pesticides used in agriculture, on a pound per acre basis.” (beyondpesticides.org)

A variety of products are employed on golf courses. They create virtual lakes of chemical poison.

Or should I say rivers instead of lakes? Underground toxic rivers that affect bordering communities surrounding 34,000 golf courses across the world. If a groundskeeper with cancer can win $78 million in a lawsuit, how many billions of dollars should be awarded in a comprehensive legal action that correctly assigns criminal responsibility to giant chemical corporations?


(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Image credit: Pixabay

Source

Hundreds Of Millions Of Pigs Feared Dead From Swine Fever – Price Of Pork Has Risen 38 Percent In The Last 4 Weeks

By Michael Snyder

A plague of epic proportions is ripping through the global pig population, and CNBC is warning that this unprecedented outbreak of African swine fever “could lead to significant shortages” of pork in the global marketplace.  As you will see below, the price of pork has already risen 38 percent over the last 4 weeks, and it appears inevitable that it will go a lot higher as this crisis continues to intensify.  When the first case of African swine fever was reported in China last August, nobody was really too concerned at the time.  But since then it has been spreading like wildfire, and the most recent estimates of the spread of the disease that we are getting from the experts are absolutely terrifying.

China consumes 49 percent of all pork produced in the world, and they slaughter approximately 700 million pigs a year.

So we are talking about the primary source of protein for the most populated country on the entire planet.

According to the Daily Mail, one major pork supplier has “suggested that 30-50% of Chinese pig farms have been affected by the outbreak”.  And apparently this is the primary reason why the price of pork has increased by 38 percent over the last month…

There was an 18% increase in the price of bacon from February to April this year, according to Bidfood, Beacon said, and the market price of pork has risen by 38% in the last four weeks.

The company also said another of its suppliers, Brakes, suggested that 30-50% of Chinese pig farms have been affected by the outbreak, which has increased pig prices around the world.

If what this pork supplier is claiming is true, then this plague is far, far worse than we had previously been told.

And commodities economist Arlan Suderman is giving us similar numbers.  He just told CNBC that hog feeding in China is down “at least 40%”, and in some areas he says that it is down “more than 50%”…

“What our people there in China find is a far different story where the disease is continuing to spread,” said Arlan Suderman, chief commodities economist with INTL FCStone in Kansas City, Mo. “China just doesn’t want the rest of the world to know what the situation is.”

The economist termed it “a very dire situation” and estimates hog feeding in China has fallen at least 40% and in some larger swine producing regions plummeted more than 50% in response to the disease. He said the decline is directly attributable to infected pigs dying and producers afraid of the disease and liquidating herds to salvage some value.

There is no cure for African swine fever, and when it hits a pig farm it spreads like wildfire.  In an effort to fight the spread of the disease, most of the time authorities slaughter any pigs that somehow survive.

So if 40 percent of China’s pig farms have already been essentially wiped out, we are talking about a blow to global pork production unlike anything we have ever seen before

“If we’re down 40%, that would mean on an annualized basis that they’ve lost more pork production capacity than what we produce in all of North and South America together on an annual basis,” said Suderman.

I hope that most of you are starting to grasp the implications of what I am sharing.

And China is not the only one grappling with this outbreak.  African swine fever is also devastating pig farms in Vietnam, Cambodia, Tibet and we just learned that an outbreak has now erupted in South Africa

South Africa has detected an outbreak of African swine fever on a farm in North West province, the Paris-based World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) said on Wednesday, citing a report from the South African agriculture ministry.

The outbreak killed 32 out of a herd of 36 pigs on a farm in the Ditsobotla district, with the remaining animals slaughtered, the report said.

The good news is that there haven’t been any outbreaks in the U.S. yet, and the National Pork Producers Council just canceled the World Pork Expo due to fears about the disease

The National Pork Producers Council said it would be safest for the U.S. herd to cancel the World Pork Expo, which attracts about 20,000 visitors annually to the Iowa State Fairgrounds.

Visitors attend from 40 countries, including areas that have tested positive for the disease.

“Producers have been very concerned about the risk of African swine fever,” said Jen Sorenson, vice president of the council’s board.

The United States sells approximately 20 billion dollars worth of pork annually, and so there is a tremendous amount at stake.

The Department of Homeland Security is taking this threat extremely seriously, and they are going to do all they can to keep African swine fever from crossing our borders.

But even if the disease never reaches the United States, it is still going to deeply affect us.  If the numbers that I shared with you above are accurate, that means that hundreds of millions of pigs are already dead, and this plague continues to spread.

Pork prices have already shot up, but they will never be lower than they are right now.  China and other major pork consuming nations will be trying to import all of the pork that they possibly can, and that is just going to drive the price of pork through the roof.

And for those of us that don’t eat pork, we will see prices for chicken and beef also rise as pork eaters alter their buying behavior due to rising prices.  So in the end, all forms of meat are going to become significantly more expensive.

Also, let us not forget that “as many as a million calves” were lost in the state of Nebraska alone during the recent flooding in the central United States.  That is going to drive up meat prices too.

No matter how much meat is actually produced, people are still going to be just as hungry.  If you take a basic course in economics at one of our universities, you will learn that when demand stays the same and supply goes down, prices are going to rise.

Of course if African swine fever continues to spread wildly all over the globe, eventually we are going to have a much bigger problem on our hands than just rising prices.

This is a developing story, and I will do my best to keep you updated.

About the author: Michael Snyder is a nationally-syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is the author of four books including Get Prepared Now, The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters. His articles are originally published on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News. From there, his articles are republished on dozens of other prominent websites. If you would like to republish his articles, please feel free to do so. The more people that see this information the better, and we need to wake more people up while there is still time.

Image credit: Pixabay

Source

Monsanto Has Been Knowingly Lying About the Safety Of Roundup In Their Ads For Decades

By Richard Enos

  • The Facts: In 1996, Monsanto was sued by the New York Attorney General based on its false and misleading advertising of Roundup products. Monsanto lost and agreed to stop, but to date they have not stopped those practices anywhere other than New York State.
  • Reflect On: How can we use the egregious assault on our health and well-being at the hands of corporations like Bayer-Monsanto to catalyze our awakening and our motivation to build the type of world we would most prefer to live in?

In the wake of a second lawsuit against Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) ruled in favor of defendant Edwin Hardeman to the tune of $80 million, it is starting to look like Monsanto has simply gone to the well too often–a well that they themselves have poisoned. Years of denying that Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate causes cancer, years of fabricating ‘scientific’ studies to back up this claim, and years of advertising Roundup as safe when they knew it was anything but is now coming back to haunt them, and may eventually put their very survival in danger.

Related CE Article:Bayer (Monsanto) Loses Billions As Another Jury Determines Roundup Herbicide Causes Cancer

What is perhaps most poignant in the settlement is the fact that Hardeman received about $5 million for compensatory damages, based on the fact that his exposure to glyphosate was shown to have caused his cancer, but was awarded an additional $75 million for punitive damages, based on the fact that ‘Monsanto was negligent by not using reasonable care to warn about Roundup’s NHL <Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma> risk.’ (source)

This is telling Monsanto that their most egregious crime was not the fact that their product caused someone’s cancer, but that they intentionally withheld known dangers from the public in their labeling and promotion of the product.

How Do We Know Monsanto Has Been Lying?

How can we say for sure that Monsanto knows that it is promoting false ideas about the safety of Roundup to the public? We only need to dig a little into the case files to see the type of evidence that convinced jurors that they are doing so.

In the first case that Monsanto lost to Dewayne Johnson not too long ago (which we wrote about here and here), the prosecutor revealed that in 1996, Monsanto was sued by the New York Attorney General based on its false and misleading advertising of Roundup products. They ended up agreeing to an ‘Assurance of Discontinuance’ with New York State wherein Monsanto would stop making advertisements that made certain unsubstantiated claims about the safety of Roundup.

A discussion of this piece of evidence between Joe Martino and I is captured in the video below, part of a larger discussion about Bayer-Monsanto and the pharmaceutical industry in our bi-weekly news broadcast ‘The Collective Evolution Show’ available on CETV:



Here is the precise way it was presented in the complaint document of Dewayne Johnson’s lawsuit:

Monsanto has known for decades that it falsely advertises the safety of Roundup

42. In 1996, the New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) filed a lawsuit against Monsanto based on its false and misleading advertising of Roundup products. Specifically, the lawsuit challenged Monsanto’s general representations that its spray-on glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup, were “safer than table salt” and “practically non-toxic” to mammals, birds, and fish. Among the representations of the NYAG found deceptive and misleading about the human and environmental safety of Roundup are the following:

A) Remember that environmentally friendly Roundup herbicide is biodegradable. It won’t build up in the soil so you can use Roundup with confidence along customers’ driveways, sidewalks, and fences…

B) And remember that Roundup is biodegradable and won’t build up in the soil. That will give you the environmental confidence you need to use Roundup everywhere you’ve got a weed, brush, edging or trimming problem.

C) Roundup biodegrades into naturally occurring elements.

D) Remember that versatile Roundup herbicide stays where you put it. That means there’s no washing or leaching to harm customers’ shrubs or other desirable vegetation.

E) This non-residual herbicide will not wash or leach in the soil. It…stays where you apply it.

F) You can apply Accord with “confidence because it will stay where you put it,” it bonds tightly to soil particles, preventing leaching. Then, soon after application, soil microorganisms biodegrade Accord into natural products.

G) Glyphosate is less toxic to rats than table salt following accuse oral ingestion.

H) Glyphosate’s safety margin is much greater than required. It has over a 1,000-fold safety margin in food and over a 700-fold safety margin for workers who manufacture it or use it.

I) You can feel good about using herbicides by Monsanto. They carry a toxicity category rating of ‘practically non-toxic’ as it pertains to mammals, birds, and fish.

J) “Roundup can be used where kids and pets will play and break down into natural material.” This ad depicts a person with his head in the ground and a pet dog standing in an area which has been treated with Roundup.

43. On November 19, 1996, Monsanto entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance with NYAG, in which Monsanto agreed, among other things, “to cease and desist from publishing or broadcasting any advertisements [in New York] that represent, directly or by implication” that:

A) its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof are safe, non-toxic, harmless, or free from risk.

B) Its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof manufactured, formulated, distributed or sold by Monsanto are biodegradable.

C) its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof stay where they are applied under all circumstances and will not move through the environment by any means.

D) its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof are “good” for the environment or are “known for their environmental characteristics.”

E) glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof are safer or less toxic than common consumer products other than herbicides.

F) its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof night be classified as “practically non-toxic.”

44. Monsanto did not alter its advertising in the same manner in any state other than New York, and on information and belief still has not done so today.

One of the reasons this is so compelling is that it shows Monsanto being forced to acknowledge that it was using deceptive practices, but that it made absolutely no effort to stop this deceptive practice in any other state than the one they were forced to. It is evidence like this that is starting to make people realize that we can no longer give corporations the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their claims that their products are safe for human beings and for the environment.

The Takeaway

As information of this kind comes more into the public eye, and as we become more aware that corporations are willfully putting public health at risk simply for the sake of profit, our collective wheels will start turning with thoughts about the type of world we want to live in, imbued with a sense of urgency around creating a system within which human safety and health are much more highly valued.


Richard Enos: My Master’s thesis on “The Anatomy of Self-Overcoming in Nietzsche” was only the beginning of my journey of exploration into consciousness. I have since lived and taught in Korea, studied yoga in India, written a book entitled “Parables for the New Conversation”, built a film and theater production company (pandorasboxoffice.ca), and started a family. While I endeavor to foster positive change in the world through my works, I hold fast to CE’s maxim ‘Change starts within’. I am humbled and grateful to have joined the CE team as of April 2018 as a contributing writer. You can reach me at [email protected]

This article was sourced from Collective Evolution.

Source

FDA Wants to Lower Amount of Fluoride in Bottled Water, but Scientists Say it is Still Too High

By Emma Fiala

Rather than combating the high levels of pesticides found in much of the food grown in the United States, the negative effects of factory farming, or the lack of clean water available to numerous communities across the country, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing slightly lowering the standard for fluoride content in bottled water.

Thankfully, scientists and environmental organizations alike are pushing back on the proposed changes, saying the new standard will still be too high for safe consumption.

The FDA’s current standard straddles 0.8 and 1.7 milligrams per liter. The new regulation, if finalized, will lower the standard for both imported and domestically packaged bottled water to 0.7 milligrams per liter. The new regulation only addresses bottled water with fluoride added during the process, not bottled water that contains fluoride from the source.

For years, critics of the fluoridation of drinking water have maintained that it is not safe nor helpful in combating tooth decay. As long as critics of fluoride have existed, so has a campaign to mock those same people as conspiracy theorists or science deniers.

In 2015, the U.S. Public Health Service suggested that 0.7 milligrams per liter was the optimal concentration for fluoride in community water. According to the FDA, the proposed rule “is based on findings from evolving research on optimal concentrations of fluoride that balances fluoride’s benefits in preventing tooth decay with its risk of causing dental fluorosis, a condition most often characterized by white patches on teeth.” Dental fluorosis is caused when too much fluoride is consumed while teeth are still developing.

Some scientists are now speaking out, expressing concerns extending beyond tooth health and instances of dental fluorosis.

Christopher Neurath, research director of the American Environmental Health Studies Project, published a study this year highlighting a “dramatic increase in fluorosis” over the last decade. Over 30% of adolescents involved in the study showed “moderate and severe dental fluorosis” with 35% showing lesser, but still significant, signs of dental fluorosis.

Neurath maintains that the slight decrease in bottled water fluoridation that would result if the standard were approved would do little to reduce occurrences of dental fluorosis.

“Dental fluorosis is a visible sign of overexposure to fluoride, but there are other nonvisible signs and adverse health effects that are much more serious,” Neurath said. “Currently, there are rapidly increasing scientific studies showing neurotoxicity to fluoride.”

Dr. Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, wrote:

Given that fluoride can damage brain development, I would recommend that the maximum fluoride concentration in bottled water be kept at a lower level than 0.7 mg/L.

Neurath calls the link between IQ and fluoride exposure in the womb their “largest concern.” Neurath insists the effects of prenatal exposure to fluoride on IQ is “very large,” adding that “on a population basis, that’s very concerning.”

As reported by CNN:

Morteza Bashash, an assistant professor in the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto, found that higher fluoride levels as measured in urine samples of pregnant women are associated with both lower IQ and increased risk of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder among children in Mexico.

Bashash found “a drop in children’s scores on intelligence tests for every 0.5 milligram-per-liter increase in fluoride exposure beyond 0.8 milligrams per liter detected in a pregnant mother’s urine.”

Despite concerns, the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics “fully support the public health benefits of community water fluoridation.”

Dr. Grandjean maintains, “Given that fluoride is added to toothpaste to secure that the enamel surface of the teeth is properly protected against caries, there is no need to supplement the dietary fluoride intake.”

For those in the know about the potential effects of water fluoridation, avoiding bottled water in the United States is one way to avoid its ill effects. While many adults and parents choose to avoid toothpaste and dental treatments that include fluoride, many remain unaware or helpless when it comes to municipal water supply fluoridation, meaning the water consumed directly or used in cooking in homes, schools, and restaurants alike contains invisible and odorless fluoride.

More and more Americans are combating municipal water fluoridation by using filtration systems that remove fluoride like reverse osmosis, gravity filters, distillers, and pitchers. While all four types remove fluoride, each has advantages and disadvantages including cost, ease of use, mineralization and more.

In addition to individuals, since 1990 more than 400 communities across the United States and Canada have opted to end municipal fluoridation. A list of those communities can be found here. When it comes to reversing municipal fluoridation, the process usually begins with one concerned citizen making their neighbors and city council aware. Visit the Fluoride Action Network to learn how to start a successful local fluoride-free campaign.

This article was sourced from The Mind Unleashed.

Source

Americans Had To Borrow 88 BILLION Dollars To Cover Their Medical Bills Last Year

By Michael Snyder

I know that the headline sounds outrageous, but it is actually true.  According to a brand new report that was just released, Americans had to borrow 88 billion dollars to cover their medical bills last year.  That is a truly astounding number, and it shows just how dramatically our current health care system has failed.  And even though the vast majority of Americans are covered by “health insurance”, millions of us are deathly afraid to go to the hospital because of what it might cost.

Today, two-thirds of all personal bankruptcies in the United States are caused by medical bills, and most of the people going bankrupt actually had health insurance.  Overall, more than half a million American families are financially ruined by medical bills each year, and meanwhile our “representatives” in Washington are doing absolutely nothing to fix the problem.

Surveys have shown that up to two-thirds of the country is living paycheck to paycheck at least part of the time, and an unexpected medical bill can be absolutely devastating for those that are just barely scraping by.

Without much of a financial cushion to fall back on, many families must borrow money when confronted with a large medical expense, and the scale at which this is happening is absolutely stunning

Health care costs in the United States are generally measured as the highest in the world. Last year, many Americans could not afford their health care costs and so borrowed $88 billion to pay for that portion they could not afford.

According to a new West Health and Gallup poll, in a new report titled “The U.S. Healthcare Cost Crisis,” the $88 billion was borrowed in the year before the survey, which was done from January 14 to February 20. The poll was conducted via a random group of 3,537 adults over 18 living in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

How in the world is this possible?

After all, more than 90 percent of all Americans have some form of health coverage.  So why did Americans need to borrow 88 billion dollars to cover their unpaid medical bills last year alone?

Well, first of all it is important to remember that health insurance deductibles have gotten obscenely huge.  The following numbers come from a CNN article about Obamacare

The law sets a ceiling on how much consumers have to spend on health care. In 2019, it’s $7,900 for a single person and double that for a family. Some bronze plans peg their deductibles to those levels.

The average deductible for a 2019 bronze policy — which have higher deductibles, but lower premiums than other tiers of Obamacare plans — is nearly $5,900, while the average maximum of out-of-pocket limit is just under $7,000, according to Health Pocket, an online health insurance shopping tool. Family bronze plans have an average deductible of just under $12,200 and an average out-of-pocket maximum of nearly $14,000.

Secondly, even if you have surpassed your deductible, there is still no guarantee that your health insurance company will cover your medical bills.  If you do not jump through every single little hoop they want you to jump through, in many instances they will leave you high and dry.  When I was running for Congress I had personal conversations with so many people that had been screwed over by the health insurance companies.  The more claims they deny, the more money they make, and they have become masters at finding even the smallest loophole that will enable them to wiggle off the hook.

Of course there are some health insurance companies out there that are doing a good job, but the bad apples give the entire industry a very bad name.

We have a system that is deeply broken, and it greatly frustrates me that both political parties seem so uninterested in getting a solution through Congress.

Here are some more numbers that show the current state of the U.S. health care system…

When I was growing up, my mother took me and my siblings to the doctor constantly.  But I don’t know anyone that does that today, because it would be ridiculously expensive in most cases.

And one recent survey actually found that 41 percent of all Americans decided against an emergency room visit last year “due to cost”

Another major personal financial concern among Americans is that 45% worry that a “major health care event” would leave them bankrupt, the West Health-Gallup survey found. Additionally, in the past year, 41% said they did not visit an emergency room due to cost.

Fifteen million Americans “deferred” purchasing prescription drugs in the past year because of costs as well. Finally, 76% believe the problem will become worse because health care costs will rise more over the next two years.

Fixing our horribly broken health care system needs to be a top national priority, but earlier today Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made it abundantly clear that nothing will be done about Obamacare in the Senate until the 2020 election.  And of course the Democrats are not going to make any major moves on health care until the 2020 election either.

Unfortunately, we are stuck with what we have got for the moment.

Our health care crisis is a national nightmare that never seems to end, and it gets worse with each passing year.

So for now, just hope that nobody in your family becomes seriously ill, because if that happens there is a good chance you might go bankrupt.

About the author: Michael Snyder is a nationally-syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is the author of four books including Get Prepared Now, The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters. His articles are originally published on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News. From there, his articles are republished on dozens of other prominent websites. If you would like to republish his articles, please feel free to do so. The more people that see this information the better, and we need to wake more people up while there is still time.

Image credit: Pixabay

Source

Signed as Law: Maine Legalizes Sale of CBD Despite Ongoing Federal Prohibition

By Mike Maharrey

Yesterday, Maine Gov. Janet Mills signed a bill into law allowing the sale of food and food additives containing CBD within the state, This will not only open up markets in Arkansas, but it is also a crucial step given the FDA’s continued regulation of CBD.

Rep Craig Hickman (D-Winthrop), along with a bipartisan coalition of three cosponsors, introduced House Bill 630 (LD630) on Feb. 5. The new law clarifies that food, food additives and food products containing hemp-derived cannabidiol produced and sold within the state are not adulterated. In effect, this legalizes the sale of CBD in Maine. Under the law, sellers cannot claim that food, food additives or food products that contain hemp can diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, condition or injury without approval pursuant to federal law.

Organically Grown CBD Oil and Products Available (Ad)

LD630 passed both the House and Senate by greater than 2/3 majority. With Gov. Mills’ signature, the new law went into immediate effect.

Passage of LD630 ensures the state will not continue to ban the sale CBD and CBD products. This is crucial because despite removing the plant from the list of controlled substances late last year, the federal government still prohibits the sale of CBD products under FDA rules.

As the legislative findings in LD630 explain, up until the passage of this bill, the health inspection program run by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services was sending letters to retail food establishments in the state and regulators from the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry were contacting pet stores explaining that any food or food products containing hemp-derived cannabidiol must be removed from shelves, even if those food or food products were not introduced into interstate commerce.

Simply put, the state of Maine was following the DEA’s lead and enforcing a complete ban on CBD. That has now ended.

2018 Farm Bill and CBD

With the passage of the farm bill, the federal government now treats industrial hemp as an agricultural commodity instead of a controlled substance. While the DEA will no longer have the authority to regulate hemp, the provisions of the farm bill have no bearing on FDA rules and regulations regarding CBD. In fact, a section in the farm bill makes this explicit.

Section 297D, paragraph (c)(1) “Regulations and Guidelines; Effect on Other Law” states “nothing in this subtitle shall affect or modify the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

Practically speaking, the passage of the farm bill does not mean CBD will now be federally-legal in all 50 states, as some hemp supporters claim. In fact, the FDA still maintains a strict prohibition on the sale of CBD in the U.S.

To date, the FDA has only approved one medication with cannabidiol as an active ingredient – Epidiolex for the treatment of seizures. But the FDA classifies CBD as “a drug for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted.” Under federal law, that designation means the FDA maintains full control over the substance and it cannot be marketed as a “dietary supplement.” The agency maintains that the sale of CBD or any food products containing the substance is illegal.

To date, the agency hasn’t changed its position on CBD. In a recent congressional hearing, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said he understands that Congress wants a pathway to CBD availability, but said “it is not a straightforward issue” due to the fact that the agency has approved CBD for treatment of epilepsy and it is ““subject of substantial clinical investigation.” Both of these factors prohibit CBD from being sold as a “health supplement” and from being added to food.

Gottlieb said, “the law does allow us to go through a regulatory process and go through a notice and comment rule-making to establish a framework to allow it to be put into the food supply.” He said the first step would be a public meeting “sometime in April”

In effect, the agency can continue to enforce these same rules even with the passage of the 2018 farm bill. While farmers can now legally grow hemp for commercial purposes, including the production of fiber, biofuel, building products, paper, clothes and even food products that don’t contain CBD, the sale of cannabinol or food products containing CBD remain federally-illegal, as it has been all along, unless the FDA changes its policy or Congress passes legislation specifically legalizing CBD.

IN EFFECT

With the passage of LD630, Maine will not interfere with the sale of CBD products produced in the state regardless of continued federal prohibition. The legislative findings assert:

“Any compliance with the letters or statements from the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry, which expand the federal Food and Drug Administration’s authority to regulate only food that enters into interstate commerce, will undermine state sovereignty, diminish the livelihoods of Maine hemp farmers, food producers and retailers and deprive the people of Maine of the food that they consider necessary for their own or their animals’ health and well-being.”

Without state cooperation, the FDA will likely have trouble regulating it in Maine.

Despite past and ongoing federal prohibition, CBD is everywhere. A New York Times article asserted that “with CBD popping up in nearly everything — bath bombs, ice cream, dog treats — it is hard to overstate the speed at which CBD has moved from the Burning Man margins to the cultural center.”

This was happening when both the DEA and FDA prohibited CBD. It will undoubtedly continue as long as market demand remains and states don’t interfere. The FDA can’t effectively enforce prohibition without the assistance of state and local officials.

According to the FDA, the agency prioritizes enforcement based on a number of factors, including “agency resources and the threat to public health. FDA also may consult with its federal and state partners in making decisions about whether to initiate a federal enforcement action.”

Even with both the FDA and DEA theoretically enforcing federal laws and regulations banning CBD, state and local action have already nullified federal prohibition in practice and effect. There’s no reason to think that won’t continue as long as states maintain the same stance on CBD as they did under the 2014 farm bill. Simply put, the federal government lacks the personnel and resources to crack down on CBD – even if the FDA wants to.

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, where this article first appeared. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE

Source

Iowa Town Bans Fluoride And Ends Program As Chemical’s Danger Becomes Apparent

By Aaron Kesel

A small town in northwestern Iowa called Ida Grove has voted to end treating its city’s drinking water with fluoride.

The Ida Grove City Council voted to halt fluoride treatment in the city’s water supply, the Sioux City Journal reported. The move comes after city leaders and residents challenged whether the fluoride was effective at preventing tooth decay or presented health risks

A recent survey distributed through utility bills found that most citizens of the 2,000 population city didn’t support fluoridation, according to the clerk’s office.

Fluoridating water has long been debated across the country, and some opponents have argued that its health effects aren’t completely understood.

There are three types of fluoride used to “fluoridate” water supplies: Fluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate, and sodium fluoride.

Fluorosilicic acid is the type most often used for cost reasons, and it is derived from phosphate fertilizers according to the CDC’s website.

The other two are created by adding either table salt or caustic soda to the mix.

Although if you bring up the topic of fluoride you are heavily ridiculed, the cited scientific research in this article will make you think twice. That maybe, just maybe a chemical does cause damage to the human body in numerous ways and is linked to several disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain, and the thyroid gland, as well as lowering IQ.

To this writer’s knowledge, everything started in 1995 when Dr. Phyllis Mullenix Ph.D., a highly respected pharmacologist and toxicologist, found that rats who had fluoride added to their diet exhibited abnormal behavioral traits in a published study.

In 2005, a study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health found that fluoride in tap water directly contributed to causing bone cancer in young boys.

“New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma – bone cancer – between the ages of 10 and 19,” according to a London Observer article about the study.

Based on the findings of the study, the respected Environmental Working Group — a non-profit research organization environmental watchdog — lobbied to have fluoride in tap water be added to the U.S. government’s classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer.

After reviewing fluoride toxicological data, the NRC reported in 2006, “It’s apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.”

In another article by Scientific American, a study “Concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid — the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism.”

The report also notes that “a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ.”

“Epidemiological studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride exposure increases the risk of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable populations such as the elderly and diabetics,” writes Dan Fagin.

Fagin interviewed Steven Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study which tracked about 700 Iowa children for sixteen years. Nine-year-old “Iowa children who lived in communities where the water was fluoridated were 50 percent more likely to have mild fluorosis… than [nine-year-old] children living in nonfluoridated areas of the state,” writes Fagin.

In 2012, years later, a Reuters headline read: “Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ – Published in Federal Gov’t Journal.”

Then the U.S. government finally admitted in 2015 that they’ve overdosed Americans on fluoride and, for the first time since 1962, lowered its recommended level of fluoride in drinking water, Mercola reported.

Even the Chinese have found that fluoride in drinking water causes damage to children’s livers and kidneys, according to an August 2006 Chinese study.

So is the anti-fluoride conspiracy global? Or maybe there is really something there to suggest that chemical waste is dangerous … go figure.

Interestingly enough, when digging I found a case in town where they found out the hard way that fluoride added to their water supply began corroding pipes and even damaging city vehicles.

In 2014, a report from the world’s oldest and most prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, officially classified fluoride as a neurotoxin — in the same category as arsenic, lead, and mercury.

Further, the EPA published a now-deleted document stating that fluoride is a chemical “with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

A study, published in the journal Environmental Health in 2015, found that states with a higher portion of artificially fluoridated water had a higher prevalence of ADHD. This relationship held up across six different years examined. The authors, psychologists Christine Till and Ashley Malin at Toronto’s York University, looked at the prevalence of fluoridation by state in 1992 and rates of ADHD diagnoses in subsequent years.

“States in which a greater proportion of people received artificially-fluoridated water in 1992 tended to have a greater proportion of children and adolescents who received ADHD diagnoses [in later years], after controlling for socioeconomic status,” Malin says. Wealth is important to take into account because the poor are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, she says. After income was adjusted for, though, the link held up.”

Another study in 2015 from the University of Kent suggests that fluoride in drinking water may trigger depression and weight gain by causing thyroid problems, Telegraph.co.uk reported.

Fluoride isn’t the only chemical to worry about in our water; in 2017, the Environmental Working Group, released a searchable database that shows almost 50,000 public water systems in the U.S. that are contaminated with dozens of harmful chemicals.

Some of the chemicals found in your drinking water include – arsenic, hexavalent chromium, radiation, chloroform, perfluorooctanoic acid, Bromodichloromethane, Dichloroacetic acid, Barium, and Uranium; and that’s just scratching the surface of the 250-plus contaminants the group discovered.

In 2016, the EWG found that two-thirds of Americans’ water is contaminated with the carcinogen that Erin Brockovich exposed – chemical chromium 6 or hexavalent chromium – affecting the tap water of more than 218 million Americans.

A 2008 study by the National Toxicology Program found that chromium-6 in drinking water caused cancer in rats and mice that were exposed to the chemical.

It’s been 20 years since the EPA last passed any new drinking water regulations. Regardless, it’s clear that municipalities have not been following the guidelines anyway.

If you’re in the U.S. you can check your own water supply by visiting the Tap Water Database, which allows anyone in the U.S. to enter their zip code or local utility’s name and find out what’s lurking in their local water supply.

Today, nearly 75% of the U.S. gets fluoridated water from the community system. However, in the past five years, 74 cities have voted to remove fluoride from their drinking water, according to NBC. So the tides are turning against the elitists pushing for using an essentially slow-kill poison on the public. See FluorideAlert.org for an up-to-date list of countries and cities that have opposed adding fluoride to their water supply.



The first appearance of fluoridated drinking water was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps. The Nazis had no concern at all about fluoride’s supposed effect on children’s teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force people in their concentration camps into calm submission by dumbing them down. (Ref. book: The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben by Joseph Borkin.)

On the other side of the battlefield, in the U.S. fluoride was being tested in the Manhattan Project. According to declassified government documents summarized by Project Censored, Manhattan Project scientists discovered early on that fluoride was a “leading health hazard to bomb program workers and surrounding communities.” Now, fluoride is a chemical used in our water to keep our teeth healthy.

Does anyone else not see a problem with all of the evidence above? I’ll leave you with the song, “Water Crimes” by New Zealand rapper Trillian and a question.

[embedded content]

Why do you want to poison me?

Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post. Support us at Patreon. Follow us on Minds, Steemit, SoMee, BitChute, Facebook and Twitter. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.

Source

Signed by the Governor: Arkansas Decriminalizes CBD Despite Ongoing Federal Prohibition

By Mike Maharrey

Last week, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed a bill into law that decriminalizes hemp-derived cannabidiol. This will not only open up markets in Arkansas, but it is also a crucial step given the FDA’s continued regulation of CBD.

Rep. Justin Boyd (R-Fort Smith) introduced House Bill 1518 (HB1518) on Feb. 19. The new law removes hemp-derived cannabidiol that is not approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for marketing as medication from the state’s list of controlled substances. This effectively removes all criminal and civil penalties for possessing hemp-derived CBD products in Arkansas.

HB1518 passed the House by a 91-1 vote and was approved by the Senate 32-2. With Gov. Hutchinson’s signature, the law goes into effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns.

Passage of HB1518 ensures the state will not regulate CBD and CBD products. This is crucial because despite removing the plant from the list of controlled substances late last year, the federal government still bans the sale of CBD products under FDA rules.

Organically Grown CBD Oil and Products Available (Ad)

2018 Farm Bill and CBD

With the passage of the farm bill, the federal government now treats industrial hemp as an agricultural commodity instead of a controlled substance. While the DEA will no longer have the authority to regulate hemp, the provisions of the farm bill have no bearing on FDA rules and regulations regarding CBD. In fact, a section in the farm bill makes this explicit.

Section 297D, paragraph (c)(1) “Regulations and Guidelines; Effect on Other Law” states “nothing in this subtitle shall affect or modify the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

Practically speaking, the passage of the farm bill does not mean CBD will now be federally-legal in all 50 states, as some hemp supporters claim. In fact, the FDA still maintains a strict prohibition on the sale of CBD in the U.S.

To date, the FDA has only approved one medication with cannabidiol as an active ingredient – Epidiolex for the treatment of seizures. But the FDA classifies CBD as “a drug for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted.” Under federal law, that designation means the FDA maintains full control over the substance and it cannot be marketed as a “dietary supplement.” The agency maintains that the sale of CBD or any food products containing the substance is illegal.

To date, the agency hasn’t changed its position on CBD. In a recent congressional hearing, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said he understands that Congress wants a pathway to CBD availability, but said “it is not a straightforward issue” due to the fact that the agency has approved CBD for treatment of epilepsy and it is ““subject of substantial clinical investigation.” Both of these factors prohibit CBD from being sold as a “health supplement” and from being added to food.

Gottlieb said, “the law does allow us to go through a regulatory process and go through a notice and comment rule-making to establish a framework to allow it to be put into the food supply.” He said the first step would be a public meeting “sometime in April”

In effect, the agency can continue to enforce these same rules even with the passage of the 2018 farm bill. While farmers can now legally grow hemp for commercial purposes, including the production of fiber, biofuel, building products, paper, clothes and even food products that don’t contain CBD, the sale of cannabinol or food products containing CBD remain federally-illegal, as it has been all along, unless the FDA changes its policy or Congress passes legislation specifically legalizing CBD.

IN EFFECT

With the passage of HB1518, Arkansas will not interfere with the sale of CBD products regardless of continued federal prohibition. And without state cooperation, the FDA will likely have trouble regulating it in Arkansas.

Despite past and ongoing federal prohibition, CBD is everywhere. A New York Times article asserted that “with CBD popping up in nearly everything — bath bombs, ice cream, dog treats — it is hard to overstate the speed at which CBD has moved from the Burning Man margins to the cultural center.”

This was happening when both the DEA and FDA prohibited CBD. It will undoubtedly continue as long as market demand remains and states don’t interfere. The FDA can’t effectively enforce prohibition without the assistance of state and local officials.

According to the FDA, the agency prioritizes enforcement based on a number of factors, including “agency resources and the threat to public health. FDA also may consult with its federal and state partners in making decisions about whether to initiate a federal enforcement action.”

Even with both the FDA and DEA theoretically enforcing federal laws and regulations banning CBD, state and local action have already nullified federal prohibition in practice and effect. There’s no reason to think that won’t continue as long as states maintain the same stance on CBD as they did under the 2014 farm bill. Simply put, the federal government lacks the personnel and resources to crack down on CBD – even if the FDA wants to.

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, where this article first appeared. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE

Source