A climate change group from Finland wants to raise a half a million dollars so they can carve president Donald Trump’s face into the side of a glacier. Other than defacing glaciers, the group says they’d just watch the carved face melt.
The glacial art project, spearheaded by the Finland-based group Melting Ice, has been dubbed “Project Trumpmore” and the idea is said to have taken shape over Trump’s skepticism about the junk science behind climate change, according to Business Insider.
In a press release, Melting Ice chairman Nicolas Prieto said, “Global warming is one of the most important issues and topics of today. There are still people who ponder whether it’s a real issue. We want to build the monument for all of us, so we can see how long the sculpture lasts before melting. Often people only believe something when they see it with their own eyes.”
If the group is able to successfully raise the funds to complete this project, they’ll document the construction and broadcast it via a live feed. They hope to make the monument 115 feet tall, and the location is to be determined. But wouldn’t it be incredibly epic if the glacier didn’t actually melt and Trump never converts to the religion of climate change?
In February 2014, Trump tweeted, “Massive record-setting snowstorm and freezing temperatures in U.S. Smart that GLOBAL WARMING hoaxsters changed name to CLIMATE CHANGE!$$$$” This upset many climate change alarmists.
Massive record setting snowstorm and freezing temperatures in U.S. Smart that GLOBAL WARMING hoaxsters changed name to CLIMATE CHANGE! $$$$
Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has conceded that humans are contributing to the planet’s warming climate to “a certain degree,” but also contended warmer temperatures might not be totally negative. “We know humans have most flourished during times of warming trends. There are assumptions made that because the climate is warming that necessarily is a bad thing,” Pruitt said in February.
But until then, we get manipulated and government-funded studies that will pay people to find climate change a real issue whether it is or not. But instead of actually helping fight the climate change Melting Ice insists we all just “believe” in it and they are willing to waste money to do it. They don’t want $500,000 to help stop the climate change they insist is ravaging the planet, they want the money to make a believer out of Trump and have turned the entire stunt into nothing more than an attempt to convert one person to their crazy religion.
After YouTube’s glaring censorship agenda set out to silence those who question the establishment, many have transitioned to a platform where their speech is not politically censored. One such man is now disarming the climate change agenda and his DTube video is throwing all kinds of wrenches in the cogs of the propaganda machine.
“Let’s make some sense about what the heck’s going on here in regards to climate change,” Sather says.
“There’s this huge propaganda wave I’m seeing, trying to tell us that humans are the cause of global warming when, in my opinion, we are not.” Sather goes on to say that while there are record heat waves, there are also record cold waves occurring right now too. There are a lot of changes happening all around the globe right now, but they aren’t’ caused by carbon emissions. “They are caused by my natural earthy and cosmic cycles,” Sather says.
Sather appears to come to the same conclusion as most of us who look at the statistics and data and happen to also understand that the sun’s cycle plays a role in the weather on Earth. “The Earth is [also] moving into a more energetic region of space,” says Sather. “There’s a lot of things going on in our whole solar system because of that…we’re seeing weird things happen with the poles of Saturn, weird hexagonal shapes…storms are getting worse on all the planets.”
“Just because you deny man-made global warming, does NOT mean you are denying the Earth being polluted…this is a big one. One of those subconscious programmings we’ve undergone…these are two very different things,” Sather reminds everyone. He then says the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) “sucks” and they are “one of the biggest polluters there is.”
Since 1973, Monsanto has cited dubious science, like tests on the uteri of male mice, and the EPA has let much of it slide.
In April 2014, a small grassroots group called Moms Across America announced that it had tested 10 breast milk samples for glyphosate, and found the chemical in three of them. Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide and the primary ingredient of Roundup. Although the levels of glyphosate found by Moms Across America were below the safety limits the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set for drinking water and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has set for food, the results caused a stir on social media.
The Moms Across America testing was not part of any formal scientific study, but Monsanto—the owner of the Roundup trademark and the premier glyphosate manufacturer—jumped to defend its most profitable pesticide based on a new study that found no glyphosate in breast milk. But this research, purported to be “independent,” was actually backed by the corporation itself.
“Anybody who finds out about this is not going to trust a chemical company over a mom, even if [that mom] is a stranger,” says Moms Across America founder Zen Honeycutt. “A mother’s only special interest is the well-being of her family and her community.” Honeycutt says she has been sharply criticized for the breast milk project because it was not a formal scientific study. But she says her intention was “to find out whether or not glyphosate was getting in our breast milk, and if it was, to have further scientific studies conducted and therefore to provoke a movement so that policies would be changed.”
Everyone is exposed to glyphosate: Residues of the herbicide are found in both fresh and processed foods, and in drinking water nationwide. More and more research suggests that glyphosate exposure can lead to numerous health issues, ranging from non-Hodgkin lymphoma and kidney damage to disruption of gut bacteria and improper hormone functioning.
The Moms Across America episode fits a pattern that has emerged since 1974, when the EPA first registered glyphosate for use: When questions have been raised about the chemical’s safety, Monsanto has ensured that the answers serve its financial interests, rather than scientific accuracy and transparency. Our two-year investigation found incontrovertible evidence that Monsanto has exerted deep influence over EPA decisions since glyphosate first came on the market—via Roundup—more than 40 years ago.
We have closely examined the publicly available archive of EPA documents from the earliest days of the agency’s consideration of glyphosate. Significant portions of the relevant documents have either been partially redacted or omitted entirely. But this archived material reveals that EPA staff scientists, who found much of the data submitted by Monsanto unacceptable, did place great weight upon a 1983 mouse study that showed glyphosate was carcinogenic.
Lab-grown mosquitoes armed with bacterium Wolbachia pipientis have just been approved by the EPA. The agency is saying that these mosquitoes could be the key to killing off insects that often transmit dangerous viruses such as Zika.
Nothing can go wrong, right? The government would never do that to us. Famous last words, but nonetheless, the created mosquitoes are very real! Mosquitoes are annoying the way it is, and adding the Zika virus has been exactly no fun for anyone. But is it worth infecting mosquitoes with bacteria in order to help stop the Zika virus? The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) says “yes.”
On November 3, the Environmental Protection Agency approved a new approach from the biotech company MosquitoMate. The goal is to destroy populations of wild mosquitoes that could be carrying nasty viruses, according to a report from Nature magazine. –CNET
MosquitoMate infects lab-grown mosquitoes with the common bacterium Wolbachia pipientis, which affects mosquitoes but they claim, it does not affect not animals or humans. They chose to infect lab-grown mosquitoes over genetic modification, although the reason for this decision is not yet known. MosquitoMate will release these insects in 20 states (which include Washington D.C., and Kentucky) this summer.
The Wolbachia-infected male mosquitoes (which don’t bite) mate with the wild populations of female Asian tiger mosquitoes (which do bite). The eggs fertilized by MosquitoMate’s male mosquitoes won’t hatch because the paternal chromosomes don’t form properly due to the effects of the bacterium.
But the process to create these mosquitoes is time-consuming, and millions must be made and infected for the insects to do their job, and make a dent in the Zika virus.
MosquitoMate hopes its GMO-free solution to destroying deadly mosquitoes will earn the praise from those of us who want a more natural way keeping mosquitoes that could end up making us sick out of our yards. “Unlike traditional mosquito control, we don’t show up after you have a problem,” according to MosquitoMate’s FAQ. “By acting proactively, your population of Asian Tiger mosquitoes will not reach a nuisance level.”
Let’s just hope they are right that the bacterium being used is not harmful to humans or animals…
“The war on coal is over,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt declared in the coal mining state of Kentucky. The head of the Environmental Protection Agency said Monday that he will sign a new rule overriding the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era effort to limit carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Pruitt was among about two-dozen attorney generals who sued to stop former President Barack Obama’s push to limit carbon emissions, so the elimination of the Clean Power Plan is personal to him. Getting rid of the Clean Power Plan will mark the culmination of a long fight he began as the elected attorney general of the state of Oklahoma.
Obama’s plan was designed to cut the United States carbon dioxide emissions to 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The rule dictated specific emission targets for states based on power-plant emissions and gave officials broad latitude to decide how to achieve reductions. However, it was the broad executive overreach Obama became known for that some states took issue with. The Supreme Court put the plan on hold last year following legal challenges by industry and coal-friendly states.
Pruitt is expected to declare that the Obama-era rule exceeded federal law by setting emissions standards that power plants could not reasonably meet. Appearing at an event with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Pruitt said, “The EPA and no federal agency should ever use its authority to say to you we are going to declare war on any sector of our economy.”
“This president has tremendous courage,” Pruitt said Monday. “He put America first and said to the rest of the world we are going to say no and exit the Paris Accord. That was the right thing to do.”
Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.
Please Spread The Word And Share This Post
Author: Mac Slavo Views: Read by 14 people Date: October 10th, 2017 Website:www.SHTFplan.com
Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.
Ring of Fire’s Sam Seder and Farron Cousins recently released documents that show Monsanto Executives were colluding with EPA officials to manipulate scientific data.
Transcript of the above video:
Sam: So, Farron, before we talk about the really blockbuster news from this week regarding Monsanto, let’s go back and talk about the history of the EPA and Monsanto’s Roundup, which of course is known as a glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in Roundup. Just give us some background so that people understand where we are as of this week with the release of these documents, what that means. But just give us some background on Roundup.
Farron: Well, basically, in 1985, Roundup had been on the market for several years. 1985 the EPA, after studying it for many, many years, decided they were going to classify it as a possible human carcinogen. And then after six years, six years ago they had said, “Yeah, okay, possible human carcinogen.”
In 1991, they decided to, I guess, take a second look at Monsanto’s request and for some reason looked at the exact same science, the exact same studies, that showed that there was a connection between exposure to glyphosate and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. They looked at the exact same science. Nothing had changed, and they said, “Okay, we’re going to take away this possible human carcinogen designation, and now you’re free to go, Mr. Monsanto.”
Here’s the kicker on this. That happened just about six months before GMOs produced by Monsanto hit the market. And those GMOs, people need to understand, were basically created so that Monsanto could sell the seeds that were resistant to Roundup, then sell Roundup by the barrel for them to go dump on all of the crops. The crops wouldn’t be hurt. It’s going to kill all the weeds. Less tillage, less work for you, if you buy our seeds and our poison. They have quite literally and figuratively at this point made a killing off of everything Roundup and Roundup-Ready related since that initial decision change in 1991.
Sam: Roundup-Ready is the term that we basically use when we’re talking about an agricultural product that is designed to be resistant to Roundup, as opposed to, I guess, theoretically the weeds around it. Now, so, every 15 years, federal law … And it’s at least 15 years … The longest period of time a pesticide or an herbicide can go without being reviewed again is 15 years, and they really pushed it to the limit, didn’t they? The EPA just started looking at it again, I guess, last year.
Farron: They did, and here’s the thing that’s happened since then. We have seen study after study. We’ve had the World Health Organization come out and designate this as a probable human carcinogen. The IARC Agency has come out basically said the same thing. Independent studies from universities, from independent scientists, they’re all coming to virtually the same conclusion, and that is that there is a higher instance of specific cancers like non-Hodgkins lymphoma along with a whole host of other diseases that are related directly, according to these studies, to exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup.
So, finally, the EPA once again came back and said, “Okay, I guess we’re a little past due on this issue, so we’re going to look at it again,” and that’s one of the reasons why Monsanto has once again found itself in the headlines. Not because the EPA is reviewing it, but because of what they’re trying to do with the EPA while they’re reviewing this particular herbicide.
Sam: Okay. So, last December, literally the last month of the last year that the government was required to review this product, and people have to understand that an extraordinary amount of our soy in this country, of our corn in this country … I don’t have the figures off the top of my head. You may know it, but it’s well over 70% of each of those are Roundup-Ready products. The corn, the soy. There’s others, but the amount of Roundup that is used in this country is extraordinary. But, nevertheless, the EPA takes the longest amount of time possible before they review, and then what do they do? They empanel an outside committee?
Farron: Yeah, and that’s one of the things that’s really frightening about what’s happening with the FDA as it currently stands is that they do rely a lot on outside committees. We bring in outside panels of experts, of scientists, and now more and more, and this is happening with Monsanto right now … They’re bringing in industry insiders. Allegedly chemical experts that all have ties back to the industry, and Monsanto has been doing everything possible to stack the deck. They’re trying to put their own people into these EPA advisory panels. People that they’ve paid. People that have been consultants for Monsanto, working on their own in-house studies. People that they’ve had rewrite studies in a more flattering light to show that glyphosate is not necessarily carcinogenic, or that the effects aren’t as bad as people think. These are the same people Monsanto is actively working with to get them placed into these EPA panels, or at the very least, from what we know, have them in that EPA panel’s ear telling them, “Well, look at this study. Look at our own studies that show that this thing is not harmful.”
They have a very captive audience there with the EPA right now, and especially with Scott Pruitt at the head of it who wants to replace scientists with industry insiders. Things are looking incredibly like they’re going to go in Monsanto’s favor, unfortunately, with what we have in this country right now.
Sam: All right. And so we should say I think there were 15 experts on this panel, and eight of them early on really expressed a concern about the EPA’s view of glyphosate as being so benign. I guess EPA came out with a report on the peer review, which was about a month or two ago. Maybe in March. Basically, where are we at with that?
Farron: Right now with that peer reviewed paper, the results of that are kind of in question because what we’re finding out at the moment is that Monsanto has been actively working, and I guess for lack of a better word, colluding with the EPA to downplay the negative health effects of glyphosate. Recently, in fact, this past week on Tuesday morning, a massive document dump took place as a result of the ongoing litigation against Monsanto where 75 different documents came out, released to the public, showing the different communications between Monsanto employees and scientists. Some of them with people who had connections at the EPA, connections to scientists, showing that they were working to downplay studies. You had employees of Monsanto in some of these communications telling their superiors, “I’m not comfortable with this. I’m not comfortable with downplaying these results or bastardizing this particular science.”
So, right now with what is happening at the EPA, I hate to sound like such a skeptic at this point, but we can’t necessarily trust it because Monsanto’s own documents show they have been infiltrating, I guess, and influencing them for several years at this point. This is not something that’s unique to the Trump administration. This is something that’s been going on for a very long time.
Sam: All right, Farron, we’re going to take a quick break. When we come back, I want to hear more about this because these documents that have been released … They’re unprecedented, the release of these documents. And like you said, they show what is know as regulatory capture and the implications of it are that literally hundreds if not thousands of people may have contracted some form of cancer because of the EPA has basically been partners in hiding information that Monsanto may have known the damages that Roundup could cause.
We’ve got to take a quick break. We’ll be right back with more. I’m Sam Seder. This is Ring of Fire Radio.
“[F]or individuals in the top 5 per cent of exposure, pesticide exposure led to 5 to 9 per cent increases in adverse outcomes.
The magnitude of effects was further enlarged for the top 1 per cent, where these extreme exposures (more than 11,000kg over gestation) led to an 11 per cent increased probability of preterm birth, 20 per cent increased probability of low birth weight, and about a 30g decrease in birth weight.”
The good news is that most do not experience birth problems, but the study tells us that pesticides do have an association with serious health problems. Focusing mitigation efforts on areas with high pesticide use could have a dramatic beneficial impact.
Hailed as a major advancement in scientific understanding, the study compared 500,000 birth records in the San Joaquin Valley between 1997 and 2011 with levels of pesticides used in the area. Researchers note that their study design “has far stronger statistical power to identify effects than previous studies,” and it allows us “to evaluate many details of the nature of pesticide exposure.”
The one “devil” is that they were unable to isolate the roles of specific pesticides, although their analysis can be applied for the type of crops sprayed—such as grapes, which receive about 50 kg per hectare per year of insecticides. Researchers “focused on aggregate chemicals grouped into high and low toxicity pesticides by their EPA Signal Word.”
Advertisment
READ MORE:Man Facing Felony Murder Charge for Telling an Acquaintance Where he Could Find Marijuana
This study is critically important because there is a dearth of knowledge on the relationship between pesticides and human health. While we know much more about the effects of air pollution—mainly due to a robust network of monitors–we know less about the chemicals unleashed by the industrial agricultural industry and their companions such as Monsanto and Dow.
Even though chemicals are stamped “safe” by agencies such as the EPA—after relying on the company’s own, often questionable safety data—the lesser-known truth is that pesticide companies hide their toxic legacy behind “trade secrets.”
In a corporatocracy, we would expect nothing less than a regulatory agency to have a backdoor for corporations to rape human and environmental health for profit.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), passed in 1976 and administered by the EPA, is the primary gateway for chemicals to be introduced on the market. The TSCA is supposed to protect Americans from “unreasonable risk to health or to the environment,” but thanks to the trade secrets provision we are denied information on 65 percent of chemicals that have been introduced over the past 27 years.
We cannot access “17,000 of the more than 83,000 chemicals on the master inventory compiled by the EPA” for independent researchers to perform testing. A “confidential business information” label has been applied to 13,596 chemicals produced since 1976, and the rate is increasing. The identity of these chemicals is kept secret from most EPA employees.
Considering that President Trump has appointed Scott Pruitt—with a long track record of using government power to serve the interests of corporate titans—to head the EPA, we can expect the trade secrets provision to be thoroughly abused.
READ MORE:Man Facing Jail Time For Having a Windmill on His Own Property, Just Bucked the System!
Make no mistake though, EPA has a long history of serving the corporatocracy. As we reported in August, bombshell documents reveal decades of collusion with chemical companies, including a secret meeting where EPA assured companies such as Dow that their products would continue being sold despite fraudulent safety data.
A large portion of the toxicology studies exposed in the 1970s as invalid or fraudulent were never redone, and they still underlie the U.S. chemical regulatory system.
The chemical and industrial agriculture industry spends millions to get politicians in their pockets and convince the public that pesticides are necessary to feed the world. But that is is a myth driven by a centralized agricultural system that promotes constant chemical inputs, monoculture crops and government patents to exclude competition.
It is possible to move beyond pesticides. To protect the health of those living near agricultural areas, and everyone in general, we must break the crushing grip of centralized industrial, chemically-dependent agriculture.
Secrecy, collusion, deception, cover-up, concealment. These are some of the words used in a bombshell report to describe how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal regulators sacrificed human and environmental health on the altar of corporate profit.
Through the determined work of watchdogs at the Bioscience Resource Project and the Center for Media and Democracy, over 20,000 hidden documents have come to light proving that U.S. regulatory agencies betrayed the public trust to unleash highly toxic chemicals – many of which are still in use today.
“The “Poison Papers” represent a vast trove of rediscovered chemical industry and regulatory agency documents and correspondence stretching back to the 1920s. Taken as a whole, the papers show that both industry and regulators understood the extraordinary toxicity of many chemical products and worked together to conceal this information from the public and the press. These papers will transform our understanding of the hazards posed by certain chemicals on the market and the fraudulence of some of the regulatory processes relied upon to protect human health and the environment…
Corporate concealment is not a new story. What is novel in the Poison Papers is abundant evidence that EPA and other regulators were, often, knowing participants or even primary instigators of these cover-ups. These regulators failed to inform the public of the hazards of dioxins and other chemicals; of evidence of fraudulent independent testing; even of one instance of widespread human exposure. The papers thus reveal, in the often-incriminating words of the participants themselves, an elaborate universe of deception and deceit surrounding many pesticides and synthetic chemicals.”
Many Americans believe the EPA and agencies like the FDA work in the best interest of the public, giving peace of mind as we breathe the air, drink the water and buy food and consumer products.
Advertisment
READ MORE:Cop Fires On Minivan Full Of Kids
However, while obvious environmental calamities like acid rain and burning rivers were being addressed in the 1970s – only after massive public outcry – a less noticeable assault was taking place. Highly toxic chemical compounds made by Dow, Monsanto, DuPont and other companies were being developed and marketed in ever greater quantities, and federal agencies were rubber-stamping their approval based on fraudulent safety testing.
These included herbicides, pesticides, dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), some of the most toxic and persistent chemicals ever manufactured. A large portion of toxicology tests for these regulated products and chemicals was based on “nonexistent, fraudulent, or invalid” data.
Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (IBT), which conducted up to 40 percent of all toxicology tests on regulated products and chemicals in the U.S., had “serious, invalidating problems” with 90 percent of their studies submitted to regulators. The fraud was exposed in the 1970s, and three IBT officials went to jail.
But EPA still had the problem of countless chemical products being on the market based off the fraudulent data. Recalling them would have had profound impacts on the chemical industry and would have been highly embarrassing for the newly formed EPA.
The Poison Papers reveal that, instead of acting to protect the public and reassess the chemicals, EPA held a secret meeting with chemical companies to assure them that their products would continue being sold.
At the meeting, regulators determined they would bend over backward to validate the faulty studies, including accepting unsigned studies from IBT. David Clegg of Canada’s Health Protection Branch was also at the meeting, and summed up the sentiment.
READ MORE:Three Fiercely Dangerous Mass Surveillance Scandals that Vindicate Edward Snowden
“I can’t say that I am very happy about this on scientific grounds, but we are trying to run this as a salvage operation and, if we can come up with something which gives us a reasonable base line for controls which may be applicable to a number of studies, then, when controls are not available, we’ll compare them against those controls.”
A majority of the IBT studies were never redone, and they still underlie the U.S. chemical regulatory system.
The secret meeting between EPA and chemical companies is the most poignant example of a long history of collusion at the expense of human and environmental health. The Poison Papers reveal several other disturbing realities, as outlined in the introductory briefing.
“Secrecy — They disclose EPA meeting minutes of a secret high level dioxins working group that admitted dioxins are extraordinarily poisonous chemicals. The internal minutes contradict the Agency’s longstanding refusal to regulate dioxins or set legal limits.
Collusion — They demonstrate EPA collusion with the pulp and paper industry to “suppress, modify, or delay” the results of the congressionally-mandated National Dioxin Study, which found high levels of dioxins in everyday products, such as baby diapers and coffee filters, as well as pulp and paper mill effluents.
Deception — They provide important new data on the infamous Industrial Bio-Test (IBT) scandal. By the late 1970s, it was known that more than 800 safety studies performed by IBT on 140 chemicals produced by 38 chemical manufacturers were nonexistent, fraudulent, or invalid. The Poison Papers, however, show that EPA and its Canadian counterpart, the Health Protection Branch (HPB), colluded with pesticide manufacturers, to keep invalidly registered products on the market and covered up problems with many IBT tests.
Cover-up — The papers also show that EPA staff had evidence that this IBT scandal involved more independent testing companies and more products than ever officially acknowledged.
Concealment — The papers show that EPA concealed and falsely discredited its own studies finding high levels of dioxin — 2,3,7,8-TCDD — in environmental samples and human breast milk following routine use of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T (Agent Orange) by the federal Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
Intent — They show Monsanto chief medical officer George Roush admitted under oath to knowing that Monsanto studies into the health effects of dioxins on workers were written up untruthfully for the scientific literature such as to obscure health effects. These fraudulent studies were heavily relied upon by EPA to avoid regulating dioxin. They also were relied upon to defend manufacturers in lawsuits brought by veterans claiming damages from exposure to Agent Orange.”
The significance of the Poison Papers cannot be understated, as EPA remains one of the primary agencies supposedly keeping us safe from chemical threats. We continue to see evidence that the agency puts corporate interests above the public interest, as evidenced by its report on hydraulic fracturing which downplayed the risks to the U.S. water supply.
Today Pacific Legal Foundation asked the Ninth Circuit to accept an amicus brief, written on behalf ofMike and Chantell Sackett, as well as John Duarte and Duarte Nursery, supporting the defendant in United States v. Joseph David Robertson. The issue we comment upon involves how the courts should apply the Supreme Court’s Rapanos decision. Since PLF argued and won Rapanos, it makes eminent sense for PLF to explain why the government unfairly applied Rapanos to Mr. Robertson in making its case against him for discharging (read: polluting) into “waters of the United States.”
The feds, specifically the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, said Robertson discharged dredged and fill material [that is, polluted waters of the United States] as a result of a series of ponds he built on land above the small town of Basin, just off Interstate 15 between Butte and Boulder [Montana].
Robertson doesn’t deny building the ponds; he freely admits using an excavator and rubber-tired backhoe to do the work.
***
What he doesn’t understand is how someone could claim his ponds polluted anything, let alone the nearest navigable river — the Jefferson, about 60 miles away.
In fact, the EPA and the Corps claimed his ponds polluted the Jefferson River because the ponds had a “significant nexus” to the river sitting 60 miles away. The jury agreed and found him guilty of polluting federal waters.
Those magic words, “significant nexus,” come straight from Kennedy’s concurrence in Rapanos. The trial court told the jury to apply the Kennedy “significant nexus” test in determining whether Mr. Robertson polluted federal waters by building his ponds. Justice Kennedy’s test allows federal regulation of any wetland with a “significant nexus” to a traditional navigable water, even in the absence of a direct hydrological connection. That overly broad reading of waters of the United States per the Clean Water Act allowed the federal government to prosecute Mr. Robertson for “polluting” waters of the United States when he simply created ponds on his own property.
The four-member Scalia plurality in Rapanos, on the other hand, only would authorize federal regulation of those wetlands physically abutting and indistinguishable from natural rivers, lakes, and streams connected to a traditional navigable waterway. Under the Scalia test, Mr. Robertson would have been found not guilty (if charged at all), since his ponds are 60 miles away from the river, and do not abut lakes or streams. But as noted above, the government used the more expansive Kennedy test.
Earlier this year, we explained that the new Administration, in seeking to define “waters of the United States” within the meaning of the Clean Water Act, should rely upon Justice Scalia’s plurality opinion in the Rapanos case for the basis for its new WOTUS definition. Some courts, like the instant court here, have relied upon Justice Kennedy’s one-justice-only concurrence in Rapanos, but, as PLF senior attorney Reed Hopper explains in a soon-to-be-published law review article, that flies in the face of Supreme Court precedent on how to interpret decisions where no single opinion commanded a 5-justice majority (as in Rapanos, a 4-1-4 decision). The Scalia opinion, not the Kennedy opinion, should control—as we argue in this amicus brief.
The federal government does not have the power to regulate the use of every drop of water in the nation, but at times the federal government acts like it has that authority. That is what happened in Mr. Robertson’s case, as well as the Sackett and Duarte cases. Since the Sackett and Duarte cases are pending in district courts within the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Robertson may control the outcome in their cases. For this reason, we filed our amicus brief. We look forward to Mr. Robertson’s exoneration on the Clean Water Act conviction, which should also finally bring the Sackettand Duarte cases to a close, as well.
A group of senators introduced a bill on July 25, 2017 in the hopes of banning Chlorpyrifos, a toxic pesticide implicated in the poisonings of farm workers. Introduced by Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, the bill challenges President Trump’s efforts to loosen environmental regulations. [1]
Chlorpyrifos Ban and Recent History
In April 2017, the EPA said it would not ban chlorpyrifos, despite the agency’s own chemical safety experts, who had recommended under the Obama administration that the pesticide be permanently banned from agricultural use nationwide, due to the dangers it poses to farm workers and young children.
In late 2016, the EPA concluded that chlorpyrifos exposure was causing potentially significant health issues, including learning and memory declines, especially among farm workers and young children.
On July 18, 2017, a federal appeals court denied a petition by green groups to force the EPA to ban chlorpyrifos. [2]
Several manufacturers produce chlorpyrifos, including Dow Chemical. It is listed as a neurotoxin by the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
According to Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician who is dean for global health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, the toxicity of chlorpyrifos was proven “to damage the brains of children, especially those of fetuses in the womb” in 3 long-term, independently-funded studies “beyond a shadow of a doubt.”
Toxic residues of chlorpyrifos are regularly found on fruits and vegetables, including under the peels of oranges and other citrus fruits, as well as in the flesh of melons under the rind. Simply washing a piece of fruit before eating it is not enough to remove the pesticide. [2]
The EPA’s own scientists concluded that the amount of chlorpyrifos ingested by young children could exceed safety levels by 140 times.
The agency’s failure to ban chlorpyrifos could be construed as criminal, considering it is illegal under federal law to apply pesticides to food crops if the EPA can’t prove that they can be used safely.
Under the bill, the EPA would be required to conduct a broad review of the uses of chlorpyrifos to determine which groups are most vulnerable to the toxin. Should that review conclude that people are being exposed to harmful levels of the pesticide, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt would be forced to take “appropriate regulatory action” within 3 months by either suspending or revoking chlorpyrifos’ registration, or lowering the amount that can be legally applied. [1]
Udall stated:
“Congress must act because Administrator Pruitt has shown that he won’t.”
Senators Ben Cardin of Maryland, Kamala Harris of California, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Ed Markey of Massachusetts are co-sponsoring the piece of legislation. [1]
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently and quietly approved Monsanto’s new genetic engineering technology, known as RNAi. [1]
The insecticide DvSnf7 dsRNA is not sprayed on crops. Instead, instructions for manufacturing it in the DNA of the crop itself must be encoded in crops. The plants’ self-made DvSnf7 dsRNA disrupts a crucial gene in western corn rootworms – a major threat to corn – and kills the pests.
All that’s left after that is RNA interference, or RNAi, and the EPA approved this final step in making corn rootworm-resistant in mid-June 2017. RNAi was the source of both hype and controversy just a few years ago, The Atlantic reports. But the EPA so quietly approved the technology that the media and environmental groups barely noticed.
The first DvSnf7 dsRNA product will be used in SmartStax Pro genetically modified corn seeds made in collaboration between the world’s top agrotech giants, Monsanto and Dow. Monsanto will supply the RNAi technology, and it already has its eye on several RNAi applications. The company expects corn seed with RNAi to be on the market by the end of this decade.
The western corn rootworm is known as the “billion dollar pest” because of the damage it wreaks on cornfields. The insect keeps becoming resistant to the other insecticides that farmers use against it – including the kind you spray on crops and corn genetically modified to product Bt toxin, another technology commercialized by Monsanto.
The SmartStax Pro corn will contain both Bt toxin and DvSnf7 dsRNA.
RNAi works by “turning off” 1 specific gene in 1 specific species by leaving other crops unharmed, at least theoretically. In nature, plants and animals use this process to “silence” their own genes. The technology has already been used to create genetically modified apples and potatoes that don’t brown. (The apples, called Arctic Apples, are expected to reach supermarkets in the U.S. by the end of 2017.)
However, with Monsanto and Dow’s GMO corn, the DvSnf7 dsRNA silences a gene in another living organism, in this case the western corn rootworm. It modifies its environment, rather than itself.
Environmental Groups Stunned by Quiet Approval
Groups like the Center for Food Safety, who vocally opposed the RNAi-made apples and potatoes, said they were a bit stunned by the EPA’s approval. The agency only allowed a 15-day comment period, instead of the traditional 30 days, and it did not post its proposed decision in the Federal Register. It’s not the first time the EPA has done that, but Bill Freese, CFS’ science policy analyst, says the unparalleled use of RNAi as insecticide should have warranted more public scrutiny.
Freese – who has received funding from Monsanto to study the western corn rootworm – has reason to be concerned. A scientific paper published in 2011 questions the safety of DvSnf7 dsRNA, after Chinese scientists found that people eating genetically modified rice had naturally occurring RNA molecules in their bloodstream. It should be noted, however, that scientists have struggled to replicate the study’s findings, and the report received much criticism.
Freese told The Atlantic that the real problem goes beyond RNAi itself. He explained:
“There’s faddish interest in the latest technology. It often neglects the basic issues of the unhealthy practices used in planting corn.”
For example, rotating crops versus planting corn multiple years in a row in the same field can make a dent in the western corn rootworm problem.
Freese says planting non-GMO corn is also vitally important, because overplanting of Bt corn led to Bt resistance.
“We need to treat these things carefully because we really can’t just afford to throw them away.”
Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.
California will add glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s blockbuster herbicide RoundUp, to its list of chemicals known to cause cancer, effective July 7, 2017. [1]
Monsanto promises to fight the listing, required under state law Proposition 65, calling the decision “unwarranted on the basis of science and the law.”
The seeds and chemical company unsuccessfully tried to block the listing in trial court and requests for stay were denied by a state appellate court and the state’s Supreme Court. Monsanto has appealed the trial court decision.
Monsanto is entrenched in legal problems at the moment, including hundreds of lawsuits filed by people who allege glyphosate caused them cancer. The biotech giant and its products have always been controversial, but the company’s problems snowballed after the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared the chemical “probably carcinogenic” to humans.
In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) inspector general is currently investigating whether a former staffer colluded with Monsanto to “kill” a study linking glyphosate to cancer.
Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy, said:
“This is not the final step in the process, and it has no bearing on the merits of the case. We will continue to aggressively challenge this improper decision.”
Glyphosate’s designation as a carcinogen under Proposition 65 means that companies selling the weed-killing chemical in California would be required to add warning labels to packaging. Additionally, warnings will need to be issued if glyphosate is sprayed at levels deemed harmful by regulators. The majority of glyphosate applicators are landscapers, golf courses, orchards, vineyards, and farms.
Monsanto and other glyphosate manufacturers will have about a year from the listing date to add the warnings to their products or pull them from the market if it is unsuccessful in challenging the decision.
It’s not clear whether RoundUp will receive a warning label. State regulators must still decide if the name brand weed killer contains high enough levels of glyphosate to endanger human health. More than 1,300 public comments have flooded state regulators on the matter. [2]
Sam Delson, a spokesman for California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), said:
“We can’t say for sure. We’re reviewing those comments.”
Glyphosate, an odorless, colorless chemical, was introduced by Monsanto in 1974, and skyrocketed in popularity for its ability to kill weeds without harming other plants. It is sold in 160 countries, and it is applied to 250 types of crops in California alone.
The fight to protect Californians from toxic substances like glyphosate is far from over, says Michael Baum, an attorney who represents more than 300 people who have filed suit against Monsanto, claiming glyphosate caused a loved one to get sick or die due to exposure to RoundUp.
Nathan Donley, a former cancer researcher and senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, in an emailed statement, echoed similar sentiments. He said:
“California’s decision makes it the national leader in protecting people from cancer-causing pesticides. The U.S. EPA now needs to step up and acknowledge that the world’s most transparent and science-based assessment has linked glyphosate to cancer.” [3]
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the direction of the Trump administration, will revoke a rule that gives the agency broad authority over regulating the pollution of tributaries and wetlands that flow into the country’s largest rivers. [1]
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told Congress on June 27, 2017, that the agency would “provide clarity” by “withdrawing” the rule, and follow standards set in 2008. Pruitt had previously said he would recuse himself from working on litigation to the rule.
Said Pruitt:
“We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation’s farmers and businesses.”
During his testimony, Pruitt told senators that the Obama-era rule:
“… created a situation where farmers and ranchers, landowners across the country did not know whether their stream or dry creek bed, in some instances, was actually subject … to EPA jurisdiction and EPA authority.”
He added that:
“… they were facing fines that were substantial as they engaged in earth work to build subdivisions – I mean, it was something that created a substantial amount of uncertainty and confusion.” [2]
The Clean Waters Act was last updated in 2015 to define waterways – including streams, rivers, and other bodies – the federal government can regulate, thus expanding protection for 2 million miles of streams and 20 acres of wetlands, and drawing the ire of the agriculture and energy industries.
That year, the rule was delayed by a federal appeals court, after 13 states filed a lawsuit against the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. It remains on hold while the case works its way through the courts.
In February 2017, President Trump said during the signing of an executive order calling for a review of the Clean Waters Act that it should apply only to navigable waters that impact interstate commerce. The decision would put at risk the drinking water sources of 1 in 3 Americans. [2] [3]
Environmental groups say rolling back the rule will put the Midwestern Great Lakes region at risk, and lead to pollution in some of the nation’s most sensitive wetland areas.
Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, said:
“This foolish rollback of clean water standards rejects years of work building stakeholder input and scientific data support, and it imperils the progress for safe clean drinking water in the Midwest.” [2]
Kierán Suckling, executive director at the Center for Biological Diversity, added:
“Revoking the clean water rule will open the door to the pollution and bulldozing of some of America’s most important wetlands.”
So far, the Trump administration has received an astounding 500,000 comments, including numerous requests to preserve the existing regulation.
Following the public comment period, and after reaching a final decision, the EPA will have to author its own proposed rule for designing which waters should be federally protected under the 1972 law.
Environmental and conservation groups have vowed to fight the repeal.
Michael Brune, executive director of Sierra Club, said in a statement:
“It goes without saying that the Trump administration doesn’t care about the environment, public health, or its duty to protect our most precious natural resources — and that is why it’s up to us, the American people, to hold them accountable. We will fight this and every other attempt by polluters and the Trump administration to destroy our water resources.” [3]
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will delay a federal air pollution rule for 2 years, admitting that the decision will disproportionately harm children.
The agency said it will suspend standards aimed at preventing leaks from the oil and gas industry while it mulls the rule, which the Obama administration introduced in June 2016. The rule would reduce methane, a greenhouse gas, and emissions that lead to smog.
The EPA says the move will save the oil and gas industry roughly $173 million. [2]
The agency says not to worry – any harm the delay might cause children would be for a “limited” time.
“Any impacts on children’s health caused by the delay in the rule will be limited, because the length of the proposed stay is limited. The agency therefore believes it is more appropriate to consider the impact on children’s health in the context of any substantive changes proposed as part of reconsideration.”
Environmental groups are furious over the delay, saying children would especially be at risk from carcinogenic pollutants like benzene if the EPA lifts the regulation. The law applies to approximately 18,000 oil and gas facilities across 22 states. [1]
Peter Zalzal, lead attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), said:
“It is unconscionable that this unprecedented loophole for oil and gas pollution will increase dangerous smog, methane, and cancer-causing benzene when commonsense solutions are at hand. Every day that these clean air safeguards are delayed, thousands of oil and gas wells across the country will emit dangerous pollution in the air, harming the health of our children. We are taking legal action to carry out our nation’s clean air laws and fight for the health of children across America.” [2]
The EDF takes particular exception to a section of the EPA’s announcement of the delay that states:
“EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children… However, because this action merely proposes to delay the 2016 Rule, this action will not change any impacts of the 2016 Rule after the stay. Any impacts on children’s health caused by the delay in the rule will be limited, because the length of the proposed stay is limited.”
The lawsuit states:
“The cornerstone of the rule is its requirements for leak detection and repair, which direct oil and gas companies to monitor their well sites and compressor stations at regular intervals to detect leaks (also called fugitive emissions) of air pollutants, repair those leaks within specified periods, and report periodically on those actions.”
The EDF points out that the announcement acknowledges that the delay may sicken children, but argues that more illness for only 2 years is acceptable.
The EDF and other environmental groups are suing the EPA over its decision to delay the rule. The agency had originally planned to delay the ordinance by 3 months, but it has since been stretched to 2019, following a period of public comment and a final EPA decision. [1]
Said Joanne Spalding, chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club:
“This isn’t simply mean-spirited, it’s a deliberate attempt to benefit the oil and gas industry at the expense of our public health. Delaying the implementation of the standards last week was illegal and extending that 90-day stay to 2 years is equally valid.” [2]
The EDF, Sierra Club, and other groups involved in the lawsuit argue the EPA lacks the authority to issue a stay that is likely to cause irreparable harm to the residents living in close proximity to the aforementioned more than 18,000 new and modifiable wells subjected to the Obama-era rule. They said:
“Promulgated rules remain in effect unless and until they are validly changed through the Clean Air Act’s enhanced rule-making procedures.”
Mark Brownstein, EDF’s vice president of climate and energy, said in a statement:
“The oil and gas industry tell us natural gas is a clean, low carbon fuel, but industry lobbyists and lawyers then argue to remove the protections necessary to deliver on that claim. Sadly, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is only too happy to do their bidding. Every day these common sense rules are not in effect, the public’s health is at risk, the climate is threatened, and the nation’s valuable energy resources are being wasted.”
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
Despite the overwhelming mass of scientific literature and studies showing the harmful effects of ingesting fluoride, those who question it or advocate for the cessation of fluoridated water are labeled as kooks, conspiracy theorists, and shouted down by the mainstream. Even when the mainstream admits it — as in the case of the highly publicized Harvard Study — people remain in denial about this most horrific practice of mass medication without consent using the poisonous byproduct of fertilizer production.
However, all that appears to be changing. For the first time in US history, the courts will hear the evidence on the neurotoxicity of fluoridated water which could out an end to this practice once and for all.
Thanks to the vigilant work of the folks at the Fluoride Action Network, who’ve refused for years to be silenced, we are now witnessing an unprecedented move to stop this practice. Thousands of pages of research put together by dozens of scientists and doctors has been included in a lawsuit that could end water fluoridation in the United States.
Simply put, the evidence has reached critical mass and even the government can’t deny it.
Fluoridation, Americans are told, is necessary for the prevention of tooth decay. We must drink it and we must give our children fluoridated water in order for everyone to have a healthy smile — or so we have been advised for the last 60 years.
A whopping 43 studies have linked fluoride ingestion with a reduction in IQ. A study out of the Harvard School of public Health concluded, “children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas.”
Dozens more studies show the ineffectiveness of fluoride ingestion in preventing dental caries; they actually show an increase in dental fluorosis instead of a reduction in decay.
Approximately 1.2 grams of sodium fluoride will kill an adult human being. That was the low estimate that Dominic Smith ingested when he died from an overdose of fluoridated water at Hooper Bay, Alaska on May 23, 1992. Approximately 200 mg will kill a small child.
READ MORE:WikiLeaks Show Rothschilds Grooming Clinton for Presidency -- Months Before She Launched Candidacy
In spite of this evidence showing that the mass drugging of the American population is harmful, the CDC and the EPA maintain that it is 100% safe and that drinking the extremely deadly byproducts of fertilizer production is just fine and dandy.
It is because of the government’s continued denial and dismissal of scientific evidence that the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has filed this landmark lawsuit.
FAN is not some ragtag group of conspiracy theorists sitting around in their basements reading fake science on the internet. The group is comprised of dozens of medical doctors, dentists, PhDs, and scientists, who’ve joined forces to bring an end to this most unethical and dangerous practice.
Stuart Cooper, FAN’s Campaign Director issued an open letter this week, noting how the “Fluoride Action Network (FAN), along with a coalition of environmental and public health groups has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to their denial of our petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) seeking a ban on water fluoridation.
“We believe this lawsuit is an unprecedented opportunity to end the practice once and for all in the U.S., and potentially throughout the world, based on the well-documented neurotoxicity of fluoride.” You may read the official complaint here. According to FAN’s attorney and adviser, Michael Connett:
“This case will present the first time a court will consider the neurotoxicity of fluoride and the question of whether fluoridation presents an unreasonable risk under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
And, in contrast to most other legal challenges of Agency actions, TSCA gives us the right to get the federal court to consider our evidence ‘de novo’ — meaning federal courts are to conduct their own independent review of the evidence without deference to the EPA’s judgment.”
According to FAN, the reason for the lawsuit was due to the fact that the EPA dismissed their massive cache of information submitted to them, via petition, last year.
On November 22, 2016, a coalition including FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation and several individual mothers, filed a petition calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The petition includes more than 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing the risks of water fluoridation to human health.
We presented the FDA with a large body of human and animal evidence demonstrating that fluoride is a neurotoxin at levels now ingested by many U.S. children and vulnerable populations. We also presented the agency with evidence showing that fluoride has little benefit when swallowed and, accordingly, any risks from exposing people to fluoride chemicals in water are unnecessary.
Despite this petition, the EPA, who illustrates through this move and many others that it is beholden to special interests only and not the people, denied it.
READ MORE:Residents Concerned After Screams Of Starving Inmates were Captured on Video
There is now a significant consensus happening in the scientific community noting that fluoride is, indeed, neurotoxic. For the EPA to dismiss scientific facts is not only irresponsible but it is now proving to be criminal.
The question now is not if fluoride damages the brain — it is at what dose does fluoride damage the brain.
According to FAN, EPA’s own Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment highlights the importance of having a robust margin between the doses of a chemical that cause neurotoxic effects and the doses that humans receive. FAN presented the EPA with over 180 studies showing that fluoride causes neurotoxic harm (e.g., reduced IQ), pointing out that many of these studies found harm at levels within the range, or precariously close to, the levels millions of American children now receive.
Since the petition was submitted to the EPA in November and subsequently denied, more damning evidence has surfaced in the case against fluoride — and, this time, it’s from the EPA’s own scientist.
As FAN reports, some children in the U.S. may be consuming enough fluoridated water to reach doses of fluoride that have the potential to lower their IQ, according to a research team headed by William Hirzy, Ph.D., a former senior scientist at the EPA who specialized in risk assessment and published an important risk analysis in the journal Fluoride last year.
Hirzy explains the significance of this study:
“The significance of this peer reviewed risk analysis is that it indicates there may be no actual safe level of exposure to fluoride. Groups of children with lower exposures to fluoride were compared with groups having higher exposures. Those with higher exposures performed more poorly on IQ tests than those with lower exposures.
One well-conducted Chinese study indicated that children exposed to 1.4 mg/day had their IQ lowered by 5 IQ points. Current average mean daily intakes among children in the United States are estimated by EPA to range from about 0.80 mg/day to 1.65 mg/day. Fluoride may be similar to lead and mercury in having no threshold below which exposures may be considered safe.”
The fight against fluoride across the globe is winning. According to FAN, millions of citizens in hundreds of municipalities throughout the world have forced their governments to stop drugging them without consent using this toxic waste. This action is working and the lawsuit is proof of its effectiveness.
READ MORE:Texas Judge Refuses to be a Part of Traffic Ticket Scheme, Blows the Whistle on Policing for Profit
For those who’d like to support the Fluoride Action Network or would like to know how you can get involved, there are some tips below. Please share this article with your friends and family to let them know that we the people are finally making progress when it comes to our health and the health of our children.
