State Legislation | Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health

Update: Victory for Connecticut GMO Labeling—Other States, Take Note!

Tue, 04 Jun 2013 21:18:03 +0000

Yesterday, Connecticut passed a law requiring foods with genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled—and it’s all thanks to your grassroots activism!

Connecticut has taken a first important step. The House version of its Label GMO bill (which ANH-USA helped draft) passed the Connecticut Senate unanimously on Saturday, and passed the legislature 134 to 3 on Monday. Our hope is that this bill will inspire neighboring states to take similar action so the trigger can come into effect as quickly as possible.

The bill now goes to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s desk to be signed into law, and there good reason to believe he will do so—he has already issued a statement of support of the bill.

Unfortunately, the House version had the provision requiring four states to pass similar GMO labeling laws, so long as those states in the northeast region have a combined population above 20 million (it was originally 25 million, but the language was amended). We would have preferred that the legislature had passed the stronger Senate version of the bill, which carried the standalone provision we told you about last week, but this nevertheless sends a strong message that Americans demand to know what is in their food!

Once again, we must give you the credit for your superb response to our Action Alert. Now—residents of other states in the Northeast, start petitioning your legislators for a GMO labeling bill in your state!

The post Update: Victory for Connecticut GMO Labeling—Other States, Take Note! first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Healthful Artisanal Cheese Under Attack Again

Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:00:38 +0000

FDA simply ignores the lack of a single documented illness in twenty-three years. Action Alert!

Cheese, particularly real cheese, gets a bad rap. The American Heart Association makes “heart-healthy suggestions” to eat cheese with five or fewer grams of fat per ounce, and light or fat-free cheese products. The American Diabetes Association recommends low-fat cheese recipes—even though they usually contain more sugar! And the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine put up a series of billboards showing fat folks with the captions “Your Abs on Cheese” and “Your Thighs on Cheese.”

This is all nonsense. Cheese is actually good for you— especially when it’s made correctly, as is done in Europe by introducing bacteria at the right time and following a careful process. Artisanal cheese is hand-made from milk that comes from a single source (local whenever possible), and its creation focuses on the quality of its raw ingredients and the health of its animals. People are generally willing to pay higher prices because of its superior taste and health benefits. Cheese is the best source of vitamin K2, which the body needs (together with vitamin D) to process calcium correctly.

Unfortunately, artisanal cheese is not widely available in the US. There are some raw-milk artisanal cheese producers in some states, though not many. Several years ago, the FDA shut down the importation of most fine cheeses from Europe. Only a few larger companies—mainly offering pasteurized cheeses—are still allowed to import to the US, though as Cathy Goldsmith of Berkeley’s Cheese Board Collective points out, “The pasteurized versions are just not very good. They don’t ripen in the same way. They get flat and bitter as opposed to gooey and rich and multilayered in flavor,” and sales of pasteurized imported cheeses have dropped.

Of course, the industrialized, pasteurized, often tasteless cheeses are not only protected from competition; they also get tremendous economic support directly from the government. The government buys it and distributes much of it to school lunches where it is used mainly in pizza. You know, the same pizza which for the government counts as a vegetable because it has some tomato sauce. The USDA even has a marketing arm called Dairy Management that actively pushes the sale of cheese and milk.

How did we get so obsessed with pasteurization anyway? After World War II, retail milk’s competition was based on how much cream your milk had—the more the better—which was clearly visible because of “the cream line.” But this made the cheaper, less rich milk harder to sell. So the dairy industry started homogenizing the milk to do away with the cream line. That catch is that once milk is homogenized, if there is no further processing, it will go rancid in a matter of hours, which didn’t happen as quickly when milk was kept in its natural state. So pasteurization was mandated, first by states and then federally.

The FDA wants simple solutions and does not want to be blamed for food poisoning. So it likes large scale industrial solutions like pasteurization, especially ultra-pasteurization, and food irradiation (“nuking”). It has been alarmed about listeria in cheese for some time. The initial charge, and especially the attack on French cheese, came at the same time the French were refusing to support the invasion of Iraq. That is when French raw cheese was first banned and then only a few large producers were allowed to send it here.

Now the FDA, in conjunction with Health Canada, has just issued a joint risk assessment that claims consumers are “up to 160 times more likely” to contract a listeria infection from soft-ripened cheese made from raw milk compared to the same cheese made with pasteurized milk. Listeria monocytogenes has some of the highest fatality and hospitalization rates among pathogenic bacteria.

In the US, the FDA estimates that there is one case of listeriosis linked to raw-milk cheese for every 55 million servings eaten. Except that this estimate is not based on any direct evidence—it’s a mathematical probability only. The report is actually saying that if 55 million people eat raw-milk cheese (and with as little raw-milk cheese as is being sold in this country, the idea that 55 million of us are eating unpasteurized cheese is patently absurd), it is a mathematical probability that one lone individual will get sick from it.

In fact, it’s the lack of damning evidence that is so striking. Between 1986 and 2008, the report could not account for one single documented illness in the US from listeriosis due to tainted brie or camembert (soft cheeses). The researchers were only able to document twenty occurrences of illness from listeria in all cheeses from all kinds of milk worldwide over the same twenty-three-year period—less than one per year—and, according to the report, half of these illnesses involved cheese made from pasteurized milk! Compare that to the frequency of other foodborne illnesses (more than 1,000 outbreaks, resulting in between 15,000 and 30,000 illnesses, from all foods each year in the US), and raw cheese has a demonstrably sterling record of safety.

Listeria usually comes from the cheese-making environment, not from the milk itself. The few problems that have occurred were almost all from unlicensed producers. On page 17 of the report, they show four outbreaks of listeriosis from soft cheese—but all four were from homemade raw milk queso fresco (nicknamed “bathtub cheese”) which was not aged the required 60 days. In other words, the only incidents have been from cheese that was already illegal in the US.

While the FDA has a zero tolerance policy for listeria, which effectively crushes raw dairy production, Europe takes a different approach. They have tolerance limits with strict quality control measures in place.

The FDA is making its draft risk assessment available for public comment.

The Weston A. Price Foundation, in its formal comments to the FDA, recommends that FDA rules on dairy take into account processes for raw cheese making, and that it should be sensitive to the size and scale of the operation. Unfortunately this runs contrary to everything the FDA seems to believe in.

Of course, cheese is not the only story here. Weston Price as a good deal to say about the health value of real butter—butter made from raw milk—which is naturally high in vitamin A, supports the immune system, is good for preventing arthritis and osteoporosis, and helps the thyroid gland and the gastrointestinal system. Butter generally sells for hardly more than cream, even though it is made from cream and takes a good deal more work to produce—which means there’s no price incentive for artisans to produce raw milk butters. Producers are further discouraged from making raw butter because the FDA makes it so difficult for them.

Action Alert! There are bills pending in three states—Hawaii, Indiana, and Massachusetts—that deal with the sale of raw milk and milk products directly to the consumer. Please contact your state legislators and let them know you support raw milk and artisanal cheeses and butters!
Hawaii Action Alert!
Indiana Action Alert!
Massachusetts Action Alert!

The post Healthful Artisanal Cheese Under Attack Again first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Homeopathy Under Attack in California

TIM REIHM — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 18:00:16 +0000

Because homeopathic medicines are protected at the federal level, the attempt to eliminate them is coming at the state level.

Homeopathic medicines are protected as legal drugs under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C)—which means homeopathic manufacturers can make disease claims. We can thank a brave legislator for insisting on this when the Act was enacted many decades ago. However, unlike conventional drugs, homeopathic medicines do not have to undergo the FDA new drug approval process. Pre-market approval for homeopathic drugs comes from the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States (HPUS) monograph, which involves clinical verification of the efficacy of the substance.
Despite federal law, the presence of an HPUS monograph has not protected homeopathic products from a lawsuit under California’s consumer protection law. This is creating an uncertain and expensive business environment for the homeopathic industry and could threaten the marketing of these products in California and other states.
In the 2012 lawsuit of Delarosa v. Boiron, Inc., the plaintiffs alleged that Boiron, the world’s leading homeopathic manufacturer, falsely claimed that its Children’s Coldcalm product would provide relief from cold symptoms, in violation of California consumer protection laws. Boiron argued that the case should not go to trial because the plaintiff’s claims are precluded by federal preemption: the federal definition of a drug, as defined by the FD&C, includes homeopathic remedies like Coldcalm, which are recognized in the HPUS.
The judge denied the preemption. He ruled that Boiron was not protected because the FD&C also contains a preemption exemption for products that aren’t marketed pursuant to FDA approval or final FDA regulation. Trial is set for later this month.
The ruling is significant in that these two sections of the FD&C seem to be contradicting one another. As a result, it creates an opening to claim that the presence of a homeopathic drug in the HPUS is not sufficient under California consumer protection law to prove that the drug is effective.
This isn’t the only California lawsuit attacking homeopathy. Here are some others.
In Galluci v. Boiron, the plaintiffs alleged that Boiron made false claims regarding over twenty-four homeopathic products, that they could effectively treat ailments such as flu, arthritis, sore joints, joint pain, aches, fever, coughs, insomnia, or sleeplessness—again, in alleged violation of California consumer protection laws. Ignoring the principles of homeopathy, the plaintiffs also argued that Boiron’s products are so diluted that they are “effectively nonexistent” and are thus akin to placebo or sugar pills. This is akin to saying that because homeopathic preparations are not like standard drugs, they are fraudulent, exactly the kind of claim that federal protection under the FD&C Act was designed to prevent.
Boiron settled the case for $5 million. It also agreed to place a warning on all its products that “Uses have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration,” and to provide additional data on homeopathic dilution to consumers on their website.
In Allen v. Hyland’s, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants (Hyland’s and Standard Homeopathy) marketed their homeopathic products as having health benefits while knowing the products had no active ingredients in amounts sufficient enough to cause any beneficial actions, in alleged violation of consumer protection laws. The defendants were unsuccessful in getting the case dismissed, though they did manage to limit the suit to the seven products which plaintiffs actually purchased. The case is still pending.
A couple of things to note here. In none of the cases did the plaintiffs say they were physically harmed. They merely claim that the products did not treat them as they stated they would, and that they suffered minor economic loss by purchasing the product. (So apparently if your cough medicine doesn’t work well enough for you, you get to sue the company!)
Also, the plaintiff in two of these lawsuits is represented by the same attorneys, the Newport Trial Group. The law firm involved in the third case, Marron and Associates, has been accused by the Newport Trial Group of tracking their homeopathic class action suits and plagiarizing them, in an effort to attract clients to their own potential class actions against homeopathic companies.
Did these law firms recruit the plaintiffs? Are they doing this in hopes of getting multi-million dollar settlements, much of which will go to lawyers? Is this just another chapter in the predatory California lawsuits linked to Proposition 65 that we have written about before? Those lawsuits are about supplements, and these lawsuits are about homeopathic medicines, but the pattern seems similar.
The basic premise of the suits—that in the successive dilutions that homeopathic medicines go through to achieve their final potency, there may be no molecules of the original substance left at those concentrations— is not just an attack on these companies. It is an attack on homeopathy itself. Homeopathic researchers have always struggled to explain why their preparations seem to work, even though clinical evidence says it does.
New scientific research may help. Using a laboratory technique called spectroscopy, researchers have found that different homeopathic medicines and different dilutions of the same medicine can be distinguished from each other, even though all should logically contain nothing but water. One explanation for this is that the repeated dilution and succussion (the forceful agitation of the liquid) during classical remedy preparation may break the substance into immeasurably small nanoparticles, that is, “top-down” nanostructures. A novel model for how homeopathic medicines work on living systems has been proposed by researchers Iris Bell, MD, PhD, and Mary Koithan, PhD, RN, CNS. The traditional theory, that some presence remains without actual particles, is of course more controversial. We will return to the scientific questions underlying homeopathy in another article soon.
While homeopathic medicines do not go through the FDA drug approval process, they are absolutely reviewed for safety and effectiveness. The FDA recognizes the monograph published in the HPUS and administered by the Homeopathic Pharmacopia Convention of the United States, a nonprofit standard-setting organization. Currently, 1,286 official homeopathic drug products are recognized by the HPUS. Moreover, homeopathic drugs are subject to FD&C misbranding provisions, and must comply with Good Manufacturing Practice requirements. If homeopathic substance is “new” (that is, used after 1962), manufacturers most commonly gather evidence for safety and effectiveness through a method specifically designed for homeopathics called “proving.”
What is happening in California is a real threat to homeopathy. As these cases proceed, we’ll keep you informed and also work to develop strategies to protect it from predatory lawyers and a hostile court environment.

The post Homeopathy Under Attack in California first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Two Dangerous Bills in NY Show Anti-Supplement Bias

Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:30:02 +0000

One bill would give the health commissioner the power to ban any supplement deemed “harmful,” no matter how tiny the risk. A state-based Action Alert!

The New York state legislature is considering two new bills that could have a devastating effect on supplements, and if they are successful, they may be copied by other states.
The first bill (S.3650 and A.4700) will establish a Dietary Supplement Safety Committee that would create a system for adverse event reports; assess data and make recommendations to ban whichever nutritional supplements it deemed harmful; and establish a public health education campaign on dietary supplements. Most dangerous of all, the health commissioner would have the ability to ban supplements as recommended by committee.
This would undermine the hard-won national regulatory system for supplements under DSHEA, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994—which was enacted to encourage access to nutritional supplements. Creating a “negative” list of supplements at the state level directly contradicts the process outlined by DSHEA and brings us one step closer to a system of approved vs. non-approved supplements.
Remember, supplements aren’t allowed to state their full therapeutic benefits lest they be considered a drug by the FDA. Since it is illegal for producers to cite benefits in any but the most vague terms, the analysis will necessarily be one-sided, and any risk, no matter how tiny, may be deemed sufficient to have the supplement banned. Note that the same rule isn’t applied to OTC drugs like acetaminophen, which every year is responsible for 100,000 calls to poison control centers, 56,000 emergency room visits, 26,000 hospitalizations, and more than 450 deaths from liver failure.
The bill isn’t clear about what system of adverse event reports (AER) it intends to create, but at the very least, it’s redundant: this already exists nationally. FDA collects AERs for dietary supplements, which manufacturers are required by law to submit. Consumers are encouraged to submit AERs to FDA. Making an additional state-level requirement will impose a greater burden on manufacturers, with absolutely no additional benefit to consumers.
There are 409 times more serious AERs for drugs than for nutritional supplements, as we demonstrated in 2011. So why are supplements being singled out?
Given the tone of the bill, it’s very likely the public health education campaign mandated by the bill will be biased against supplements. The problem, of course, is that only conventional medicine will likely be consulted; the integrative medical community has a very different idea of the benefits of supplements, as we saw when the Institute of Medicine made its absurdly low vitamin D recommendations.
The second NY bill, SB.4151, would require that sport supplement manufacturers and distributors give the customer, along with every sports supplement sold, a pamphlet that discloses whether the product has been banned by certain sports leagues, the US Anti-Doping Agency, or the World Anti-Doping Agency, and whether it has any known negative adverse effects or known herb–drug interactions. The bill would also ban all sports supplements from being sold to people under age 18.
Illogically, the bill excludes supplements in liquid form, as well as supplements containing caffeine (such as the five-hour energy drinks), which are the ones responsible for much of the controversy over supplements in the first place. Energy drinks often get marketed as supplements when they shouldn’t be, but the fact that the bill excludes this category altogether is strange, to say the least.
We are strongly in favor of consumer disclosure and transparency. But this bill is badly written, and we fear it could be used as a hammer against the supplement industry by drug and other interests, and could also put more power over supplements into the hands of biased state agencies. Supplements have a remarkable track record of safety, and such state regulations do nothing to increase it—they would only diminish access.
Consumers should be empowered to make responsible decisions when it comes to nutritional supplements:

Seek sound, professional advice before starting a supplementation program.

Consider whether the supplements are natural or synthetic, and learn whether there are co-factors you should take with any particular supplement.

Take note of the company making the supplement. Most good supplement companies are easily contacted, and are happy to share with customers their testing procedures.

FDA also has a database of illegal and/or tainted drugs being marketed as dietary supplements.

Access to supplements is an increasingly important consumer rights issue, with 68% American adults taking nutritional or dietary supplements, and 76% of that number classifying themselves as regular supplement users. Given these high numbers, the extremely low number of AERs received annually is a testament to their safety.
Action Alert! If you are a resident of New York state, please contact your legislators immediately about these two bills, and urge them to oppose both bills. Send your message today!

The post Two Dangerous Bills in NY Show Anti-Supplement Bias first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Wireless Smart Meter Opt-Out in Maryland

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:18:52 +0000

Utilities across America are moving forward with the installation of wireless smart meters. These smart meters emit pulsed radio frequency radiation that, according to many reports, can damage people’s health and leave residents’ meters vulnerable to malicious attacks from hackers.

Take action and support HB 1038, a bill that would require homeowner notice before Smart Meters are installed.

Click Here to
TAKE ACTION

The post Wireless Smart Meter Opt-Out in Maryland first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

“Big Farma” Still Trying to Hide Their Dirty Secrets

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:00:59 +0000

Five states have introduced seven different “Ag-Gag bills” to silence people who try to expose CAFO practices. State-based Action Alerts!

Remember our exposé on the factory farms, and the legislation designed to keep the public in the dark about them? They’re back! It’s not just that these bills trample the First Amendment. It’s that these bills are designed to keep the filthy, profoundly unsanitary conditions at factory farms—CAFOs, or Confined Animal Feeding Operations—from being exposed to the public. CAFOs are the antithesis of safe and nutritious food. If governments, both federal and state, were truly serious about food safety, they would address the miserable CAFO conditions.

CAFOs are responsible for foodborne illnesses such as salmonella and listeria; are notorious for their use of antibiotics for nontherapeutic uses, and for exacerbating the “superbug” problem in which organisms become increasingly resistant to antibiotics; and ruin rural economies. In addition, there is the inhumane treatment of the animals themselves.

Ag-Gag laws prevent consumers from being informed, and therefore consumers ability to fully choose what they eat.

The current spate of bills are not novel: ten states introduced similar legislation in 2011–12, and bills were passed in Iowa, Missouri, and Utah. The rest were defeated by grassroots activists like you. These bills are introduced by legislators who have strong industry financial backing. Industry has the tenacity—and the deep pockets—necessary to keep trying to push these bills through again and again, year after year, if they don’t pass the first time.

Last year’s bill in Iowa is a good case in point: it’s a study in rampant conflicts of interest. Monsanto pushed Iowa’s anti-trespassing/Ag-Gag bill because the company has more facilities in Iowa than any other state in the country, and because “crop operations” are also covered by the bills—so Monsanto seed houses, pesticide manufacturing plants, and research facilities in Iowa will be “protected” from hidden cameras or whistleblowers infiltrating their plants.

It’s really all about the economics of CAFOs:

There are approximately 15,000 CAFOs in the US, which raise 50% of all animals used for our food.
The largest food processors hold the greatest share of the market, so they wield more power, both economic and political.
CAFOs receive a wide array of subsidies, both direct and indirect, such as crop subsidies on the corn and soybean used to feed CAFO animals. This in turn means more money in the pockets of feed producers like Monsanto.
Because CAFOs are not held accountable for the environmental and health damage they do, they don’t have to worry about those costs, putting more into their pocket. Those costs are absorbed by the public at large.
There are also the economies of scale: once a farm is automated for a large number of animals, doubling that number does not mean a doubling of costs. Organic costs more to produce—as much as 20% more—than CAFOs and factory farms because they require more labor (no use of dangerous of chemicals), more costly fertilizer, higher labor costs for crop rotation, more money spent on organic certification, slower growing time, greater post-harvest handling costs to avoid cross-contamination, and more spacious (and thus more expensive) living conditions for livestock. And of course they don’t receive the aforementioned subsidies.

Sponsors of the 2012 Iowa bill, Senators Joe Seng (D) and Annette Sweeney (R), received contributions from special interests including the Iowa Corn Growers Association (who contributed 8% of Seng’s campaign funding and gave a similar amount to Sweeney), the Iowa Farm Bureau Association, Monsanto, and the Iowa Agribusiness Association. Of course we have no idea what lobbying, if any, went on behind closed doors, but the money trail—and the support for legislation that directly benefits these special interests—speak for themselves.

These Ag-Gag laws are inspired by a model bill called the “Animal and Ecological Animal Terrorism Act” from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC has both powerful corporate members and legislators, making the conflict of interest pretty seamless. ALEC’s corporate members are a Who’s Who of the Big Food supply chain, from farmers to retailers: Monsanto, Kraft, Walmart, Walgreens, etc.

The intent of the ALEC-modeled bills is to introduce them in many states, sometimes word-for-word. It becomes a systematized process. As the New York Times reported last year, an ALEC membership brochure “boasted that ALEC lawmakers typically introduced more than 1,000 bills based on model legislation each year and passed about 17 percent of them.” When ALEC runs with a bill, it has the support necessary to go much further by being introduced in many states simultaneously. It’s a sneaky way of legitimizing an idea that benefits only powerful and wealthy companies, not the general public.

Numerous state legislators are members of ALEC; last year, of the sixty legislators who voted in favor of Ag-Gag bills, 23% of them were members of ALEC, as are sponsors of three of the new Ag-Gag bills: Arizona state senator Jeremy Hutchinson and Wyoming state representative Sue Wallis. In 2010 Wallis was the subject of a conflict-of-interest complaint for trying to block legislation that would send stray horses to slaughter when at the same time she was planning to build a horse slaughter plant of her own. Both Wallis and her cosponsor on the Wyoming bill, Ogden Driskill, are both members of Wyoming Stock Growers Association. Driskill accepted contributions from livestock industry as well as Exxon Mobil.

Here’s a run-down of all seven state bills:

State	Bill Number	Description
Arkansas	SB 13	Makes an “improper animal investigation” by someone who is not a “certified law enforcement officer” a misdemeanor with a potential civil penalty of $5,000.
Arkansas	SB 14	Makes “interference with livestock or poultry” a misdemeanor. “Interference” is defined as creating a concealed image or sound recording or by applying for employment as part of an undercover investigation.
Indiana	SB 373	Makes it unlawful to record agricultural or industrial operations, whether by photograph, film, or video.
Indiana	SB 391	Requires the Indiana Board of Animal Health to maintain a registry of persons convicted of recording such operations.
Nebraska	LB 204	If a person makes a “false statement” in an employment agreement with the intention of doing an animal facility “economic harm” or doing “serious bodily injury” to someone, criminal violations kick in. If the economic damages are more than $100,000, or there is serious bodily injury, felony charges can be brought. A more serious felony can be brought if economic damages exceed $1 million or if the violation involves the death of another individuals. The bill specifically says that it is not intended to prohibit otherwise lawful, peaceful picketing or to restrict other rights under the First Amendment. Employees who believe animals are neglected or mistreated must make their report within 24 hours of its discovery.
New Hampshire	HB 110	Requires that anyone who records cruelty to livestock must report it within 24 hours.
Wyoming	HB 0126	Makes “knowingly or intentionally” recording the image or sound from an agricultural operation without the consent of the owner or manager is a misdemeanor punishable for up to six months in jail and a $750 fine. Also requires reporting animal abuse within 48 hours, and anyone who makes a good faith effort is immune from civil liability for making a report.

Action Alert! CAFOs don’t need further protection, and individuals who bravely expose CAFO conditions should not be penalized. If you’re a resident in one of the five states where these new bills have been offered, please contact your legislators and tell them to honor free speech and oppose these bills. Please send your message today!

Arkansas residents

Take Action

Indiana residents

Take Action

Nebraska residents

Take Action

New Hampshire residents

Take Action

Wyoming residents

Take Action

The post “Big Farma” Still Trying to Hide Their Dirty Secrets first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Allow a Smart Meter in Your Home—or Face Arrest!

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:00:25 +0000

Illinois mothers were arrested for preventing the installation of “smart meters” on their properties. It could happen to you. Action Alert!

Naperville, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, has started the Naperville Smart Grid Initiative which requires so-called smart meters to be installed in every home. Residents opposed to the smart meters have been fighting the initiative for over two years.

One of those residents, Jennifer Stahl, refused to give utility workers access to her backyard through her locked gate. In 2011 Stall had spoken before the Naperville City Council to advocate against the smart meter program. The police were called, and the police sergeant said the workers had authorization to access the meter, but Stahl stood her ground. The lock on Stahl’s fence was cut, and when she wouldn’t step away from the meter, Stahl was handcuffed and arrested for “interfering with a police officer.”

“The city has always had and maintains the right to access our equipment, and today we were simply exercising that right,” Naperville City Manager Doug Kreiger told the Chicago Tribune.

Another Naperville resident, Malia “Kim” Bendis, was arrested on two misdemeanors for resisting a police officer and attempted eavesdropping when she filmed police on the scene, despite a recent federal court ruling that the state of Illinois’s ban on recording police officers in the line of duty was unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court upheld that ruling in November.

The group Naperville Smart Meter Awareness has filed motions to dismiss the charges and to grant temporary restraining orders for residents refusing the meters. There is a pending federal lawsuit as well.

As we reported in 2011, the meters work on a wireless radio frequency (RF) system, and many people are concerned about the meters’ threat to their health. There are already over 2,000 studies showing negative effects of RF radiation, despite the manufacturers’ safety claims. People with the meters installed on their homes have reported symptoms such as headaches, insomnia, and tinnitus.

A growing body of research points to the health risk of RF and extremely low frequency (ELF) radio waves. Studies show that RF radiation from cell phones have been linked to brain damage, early onset Alzheimer’s, senility, DNA damage, and sperm die-offs; the RF signal from smart meters is much stronger, so the effects will likely be proportionately dramatic. The World Health Organization reversed its stance on RF from cell phones, now calling them “possibly carcinogenic,” and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has called for a moratorium on the installation of transmitting utility meters:

The current medical literature raises credible questions about genetic and cellular effects, hormonal effects, male fertility, blood/brain barrier damage and increased risk of certain types of cancers from RF or ELF levels similar to those emitted from “smart meters.” Children are placed at particular risk for altered brain development, and impaired learning and behavior….The American Academy of Environmental Medicine finds it unacceptable from a public health standpoint to implement this technology until these serious medical concerns are resolved.

Opponents of the smart meters have also cited security concerns, because the meters are capable of tracking exactly when a customer is using electricity, and opponents fear it would allow strangers to know when they are home or have gone to work. Some fear hackers could access that information.

The city maintains that homeowners can opt out of the wireless transmitters but only by substituting those with an alternative meter at a high fee. The Tribune reports there is a $68.35 initial fee for the alternative meter plus a $24.75 monthly fee for manually reading it. Stahl said residents who want a non-wireless meter should not have to pay for it.

The arrests that happened in Illinois could happen in your state. States have a patchwork of laws governing whether residents can opt out of smart meters, and whether there is a fee associated with opting out. These other states allow residents to opt out of having a smart meter: California (up to a $75 analog meter set-up fee and up to a $10 monthly reading), Maine ($40 set up, $12/month), Maryland (fee to be determined, but a grassroots coalition is planning to introduce a bill to eliminate the fee), Michigan (proposed $87 fee, and $15 monthly), Nevada ($108 opt-out fee for northern NV and $99 for Southern NV, $8 monthly charge), and Oregon ($254 analog set up fee, $51 monthly charge).

In other states, there is no alternative option offered. For example, in Virginia, residents have been told to accept the meter or have their electricity turned off. The problem, of course, is that electricity companies are usually government-supported monopolies, so they really don’t have to worry about what their customers want.

Action Alert! In New Hampshire and Virginia, there is legislation pending that would require customer consent before installing a smart meter; a bill in Maine would eliminate the opt-out fee. If you live in one of these states, we have a special, targeted action alert on these bills. If you live in any state that has no opt-out law, or an opt-out law for a fee, please contact your legislators today and demand that opting out of the smart meter be free of any fees. Please take action immediately!

New Hampshire

Support HB454, a bill that would allow a smart meter opt-out.

New Hampshire Action Alert

Virginia

Support SB 797, a bill that would allow a smart meter opt-out.

Virginia Action Alert

Maine

Support LD 94, a bill that would remove the smart meter opt-out fee.

Maine Action Alert

California, Michigan, Nevada, and Oregon

Tell your state legislators to pass a law prohibiting utilities from charging customers a fee just because they want to opt out of having a smart meter installed on their property.

Action Alert

All other states

Your state needs a bill that would prohibit electric utility companies from installing a smart meter on a customer’s premises—or requiring a customer to use any advanced meter—unless the customer has requested it, without having to pay a fee.

If your action alert doesn’t go through, you’re in luck, your state either already has a free opt-out law, or has no plans to install smart meters at all.

Action Alert

The post Allow a Smart Meter in Your Home—or Face Arrest! first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Urgent Action Alert – for Indiana Residents! UPDATED

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:34:08 +0000

UPDATE – Newly added amendment language would give a Dietetics board (majority RD’s) the power to turn complaints/individuals over to the attorney general for investigation.

This new language creates the mechanism for the Dietetics board to harass and undermine unlicensed practitioners as they have been doing in other states.

In the absence of any significant, or vetted, documentation of harm to the public from non-RD practitioners, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has adopted strategy of filing complaints to convince legislators of the need for exclusionary laws. This new language creates the mechanism for the Dietetics board to harass and undermine unlicensed practitioners as they have been doing in other states

Contact your elected representatives in Indiana TODAY and let them know that the Dietetic Association—which is funded by the junk food industry—will not monopolize the nutrition profession in Indiana!

Click Here to Take Action

The post Urgent Action Alert – for Indiana Residents! UPDATED first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Will New Federal Rules Save Health Savings Accounts?

Tue, 04 Dec 2012 17:00:23 +0000

Let’s hope so, since many of us depend on them for natural health expenditures.

As we have discussed before, HSAs are tied to high-deductible plans—and it originally appeared that high-deductible plans would be doomed under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), colloquially known as ObamaCare.

But apparently the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in response to grassroots activists like you, and to the surprise of legislators who voted for the Act, has found a way to allow them to incorporate high-deductible plans—and thus to save HSAs. Based on the actuarial analysis, some high-deductible plans may qualify as bronze level plans on the insurance exchange. (These are insurance plans where the patient pays 40% of the bill, and the insurance plan picking up 60%.)

This is a very big surprise, and a welcome one. Does it mean that HSAs are in the clear? Not necessarily. Even though our HSAs seem to be allowed, it will be hard to get insurance companies to offer them when 80% of the premium must be paid out for healthcare expenses. So HSAs aren’t out of the woods yet—we’ll have to wait and see how everything works out when the rules are fully implemented, and of course we’ll keep you posted. But for now, we are guardedly optimistic.

Unfortunately, the word about FSAs isn’t as good. As we reported previously, Flexible Spending Arrangements allow employees to be reimbursed for medical expenses. FSAs are usually funded through voluntary salary reduction agreements with one’s employer. No employment or federal income taxes are deducted from the employee’s contribution, and the employer may also contribute. Under the new rules, there is a $2,500 limit on annual contributions to FSAs. This limit will disproportionately affect families who get CAM treatments.

Last week the government also issued its proposed rules for wellness incentive programs. These programs were already established under HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which mainly deals with patient privacy issues), but they have increased weight under ObamaCare.

There are two types of wellness programs:

In a participatory wellness program, participation is enough to get the reward (lower premiums, more benefits) or to avoid paying a penalty. The program may include gym benefits, diagnostic testing (blood sugar, BMI, etc.).
In a health-contingent wellness program, the reward or penalty is tied to certain outcomes. Tobacco cessation programs are tied to actual cessation of smoking. Diagnostic testing programs are tied to meeting required levels—such as a body mass index (BMI) of lower than 200—or else participating in a program that will help lower BMI in order to get the reward or avoid the penalty.

It is the health-contingent wellness programs that many fear are ripe for abuse and discrimination. A key factor in healthcare reform was to prevent discrimination against individuals based on preexisting conditions. There is now a legitimate concern that health-contingent wellness programs could be used by employers to discriminate unfairly against employees.

Obese patients can be charged a higher healthcare premium with many wellness programs—even though the government’s close ties to industry actually perpetuates the obesity epidemic. For example, the sugar industry, in a strategic marketing campaign, manipulated scientists and government officials to overlook health problems caused by the overconsumption of sugar. In many other instances too, the government is disseminating the wrong nutrition information, and patients who follow it are further penalized by having to pay higher premiums.

A larger concern with workplace wellness incentive programs is that companies may coerce their employees to follow specific guidelines to meet mainstream medicine’s idea of “health”—for example, pressuring employees to take statin drugs to reduce cholesterol, or blood pressure medications that may weaken the heart over the long run, or to undergo invasive tests, some with high radiation. If the employee chooses to opt out of the plan, they may get penalized by having to pay a greater share of their health insurance payment—up to 30% more under PPACA. Such an approach was already proposed in Chicago.

Fortunately, the newly issued rules do provide some possible opt-outs for natural health consumers, although they may be hard to use in practice. Employees may request a reasonable alternative wellness program based on the recommendation of their personal physician (even an integrative physician), a program that is better suited to promoting the individual’s health. Even so, all of this is encouraging employers to delve way too deeply into our personal decisions.

Proposed rules were also issued for essential health benefits (EHB). PPACA mandates that health plans offered in the individual and small group markets offer “essential health benefits” that must be equal in scope to benefits offered by a “typical employer plan”—but this will vary from state to state, and whether or not CAM therapies will be covered depends entirely on the “typical plan” selected by the state. Some states are already choosing their EHB package; states like California and Washington have decided to include acupuncture as one of services covered under the EHBs, though whether other states will follow suit is anyone’s guess.

Other states have not yet begun the process. EHBs are supposed to be decided by the end of 2012, so it is unclear what these states plan to do. If a state does not decide on its EHB package, the federal government will select a default benchmark plan for the state.

Then there’s the issue of health insurance exchanges—competitive health insurance marketplaces that are supposed to offer a choice of health plans, establish common packages and pricing structures, and provide information to help consumers better understand the options available to them. Under PPACA, each state is supposed to set up its own insurance exchange. If they fail to do so, the federal government has the authority to step in and operate an exchange in those states.

PPACA is over 2,000 pages long and was created in a rush, so some big glitches are emerging. It now appears that in states which choose not to set up their own exchanges (and that may be as many as half), the federal government is legally barred from providing subsidies. This may have been intended to encourage the states to set up exchanges, but if so, that idea has backfired, especially in light of the Supreme Court decision allowing states to opt out.

One good piece of news is that, according to our source at HHS, even if states decide not to set up an exchange, they do not forfeit their rights to choose their own EHB package—and that is very good news indeed for integrative medicine patients. You can follow states’ progress in choosing EHBs here.

Meanwhile, the big open question about PPACA remains its effect on employment. The benefits required for a minimum wage employee with a family are almost as large as the minimum wage itself. This has already led to firms replacing employees with machines—for example, replacing employees with electronic teller machines in drug stores. In addition, the penalty for employers not offering healthcare is computed based on full-time workers (another drafting glitch), so many firms are considering moving to more part-time employees. The Congressional Budget Office also estimates that PPACA covers two million fewer Americans than originally predicted.

The post Will New Federal Rules Save Health Savings Accounts? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Texas Medical Board’s Lawsuit against CAM Cancer Pioneer Dismissed!!

Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:00:00 +0000

The state’s attack on Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski is finally over. And some states are even passing laws that protect integrative physicians.

As we reported last November, Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD, is a physician and biochemist practicing in Texas who developed (with his own money) a nontoxic gene-targeted cancer therapy called antineoplastons. This therapy has been shown to help cure some of the most “incurable” forms of terminal cancer.
In the 1980s, the Texas Medical Board (TMB) charged this caring and pioneering doctor with breaking a law that didn’t actually exist, and tried to revoke his medical license. Numerous investigations later—including an appearance before the Texas Supreme Court—found no violation of any law or standard of care.
The FDA, the pharmaceutical industry, and the National Cancer Institute, knowing how promising Dr. Burzynski’s therapy was proving to be, tried to duplicate his invention, then tried to steal his patents—but failed. Despite the fact that two informal medical board settlement panels found that Dr. Burzynski was acting within the standard of care, the TMB refused to drop the case and, earlier this year, made another attempt to revoke Dr. Burzynski’s medical license.
Had the Board been successful, it would have resulted in the closure of the Burzynski clinic, the abandonment of all his patients, and the end of any possibility of antineoplastons gaining FDA-approval. The actions of the Texas Board have been nothing short of disgraceful and illustrate some of the worst problems of today’s special-interest-driven medicine.
A week before trial was scheduled to take place last April, administrative law judges (ALJ) dismissed most of the charges against the doctor. This forced the TMB to reevaluate, and it eventually agreed to dismiss the entire case. On November 19, judges from the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings dismissed the TMB’s case against Dr. Burzynski for novel off-label use of combination gene-targeted therapy.
Rick Jaffe, Dr. Burzynki’s attorney, pointed to an important recent change in Texas law. In the previous legislative session, the Texas legislature stripped the TMB of its ability to summarily overturn the findings of the ALJ, and Dr. Burzynki’s case was one of the first to come under this new statute. The Board was thus forced to abide by the ALJ’s ruling.
A stunning documentary on Dr. Burzynski’s fight has won numerous awards worldwide.
While there have been some exciting breakthroughs in cancer research lately, Dr. Burzynski is truly on the cutting edge—and this ruling might provide some room for other doctors in Texas to pursue similar treatments.
Unfortunately, this is not the case elsewhere. In most states, the ALJ provides findings, but the medical board is free to disregard them. This is especially problematic because state medical boards are historically biased against integrative medicine. Even when they are forced by the legislature to accept complementary and alternative medical practices (CAM), they still show their bias by targeting and harassing CAM doctors.
The good news is that some states are introducing and passing legislation to protect CAM physicians. Although many of these laws hold CAM doctors to a more demanding standard than conventional doctors, especially in regard to informed consent and harm to the patient, it is a step in the right direction.
For example, in California, Dr. Robert Jay Rowen received a complaint threatening his license from the widow of a cancer patient. The patient had stage 4 colon cancer and his oncologist had given up on chemotherapy. In an email, Dr. Rowen told us, “I did NOT promise anything at all, except to do the best I could to assist his immune system and hopefully improve the quality of his life. He was actually referred to me for IV vitamin C and integrative therapies [oxidation treatment]. The couple specifically requested these from me. And, the wife signed all the informed consents as witness to her husband!” While his physical condition improved temporarily, he chose not to return citing a desire to attend a clinic that took insurance. So, he eventually died. Four months later Dr. Rowen discovered that his widow had filed a complaint with the state medical board alleging abandonment and negligence.

Fortunately, Dr. Rowen had himself helped to pass a California statute protecting integrative physicians so long as informed consent is given and there is a “reasonable” basis for the CAM therapy. Dr. Rowen invited the California medical board to look into the case:

I was called in for an “interview” with a senior investigator and a seasoned cardiologist who does professional questioning at these interviews. I will admit I was treated with dignity and respect. I was questioned on ALL my oxidation methods, the science and rationale, since I did them all with this patient, including direct intravenous gas administration. I was questioned on the supplements, on informed consent, and even charting and signing off on notes….

Then [the investigators] got a chance to review a case with an identical cancer that I was simultaneously treating. This patient was 20 years older (76), and his colon cancer, with huge [metastases] to the liver, was terminal. He had only a few weeks (at best) to live….The board’s cardiologist looked at the scans and blood tests I showed him that proved a 100% remission of terminal end-stage cancer, and shook his head side to side, exclaiming, “That’s just unheard of!”

Fortunately, the case was closed—in Dr. Rowen’s favor. This would probably not have occurred without the protections provided by the California CAM statute. It’s especially significant since this was one of the first times that oxidation treatment was reviewed by a major state, and accepted as a reasonable integrative treatment.

The post Texas Medical Board’s Lawsuit against CAM Cancer Pioneer Dismissed!! first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.