The modern era of the FDA began in 1906 with the introduction of the Federal Food and Drugs Act which was intended to improve the safety of foods and drugs. Despite this being a step in the right direction, there were still very few restrictions on the production of pharmaceuticals at the time. In 1937, a poorly tested medication called Elixir Sulfanilamide turned out to be poisonous to humans and caused more than 100 deaths. In response, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 was created which gave the FDA much of the power that it has today. However, this power has been put to use in ways that conflict with the best interests of the general public.

The Customer is Always Right

Most businesses realize that their customers are the people who support their livelihood. Based on this, they go out of their way to keep their customers happy with top quality services and products. This is a very effective system, except when the people who should be receiving the preferential treatment are not the customers.

To accelerate the approval of new drugs, congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act in 1992 which allowed the FDA to collect substantial fees from drug companies seeking approval of new products. Since then, the FDA has become very dependent on this funding which creates a significant conflict of interest. One of the primary purposes of the FDA is to protect us from any wrongdoings of the drug industry, but thanks to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the drug industry is now paying the FDA’s bills and the salaries of their employees. Who do you think the FDA cares about most?

The Testimony of a FDA Scientist

In 2004, David Graham, who was then the Associate Director of Science and Medicine at the FDA’s Office of Drug Safety, testified before the U.S. Senate in a case regarding the drug Vioxx. This drug is a painkiller that was removed from the market after proving to be a significant risk factor for heart disease and stroke. Vioxx was the greatest pharmaceutical disaster of all time, and according to Graham, caused 140,000 heart attacks and 60,000 deaths. This drug caused the death of more Americans than the Vietnam war!

What’s shocking about the Vioxx disaster is that the FDA was aware of the drug’s dangers for two years before finally doing something about it. In his testimony, Graham stated that “Vioxx is a terrible tragedy and a profound regulatory failure. I would argue that the FDA, as currently configured, is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx. We are virtually defenseless.”

According to Graham, the culture within the FDA regards the drug industry as its client when it’s really the American people who should be the organization’s top priority. As such, it’s typical for the FDA to have a bias towards approving as many drugs as possible and downplaying their risks. While tens of thousands of Americans were losing their family members and friends to Vioxx, the FDA was more concerned about keeping the customer happy.

To learn more about the true nature of the FDA, I suggest that you read David Graham’s full testimony and this interview that he did nearly a year later.

Corporate Lobbying

As if the Prescription Drug User Fee Act doesn’t provide enough incentive for the FDA to favor the drug industry, corporate lobbying makes things even worse. A lobbyist is someone who uses their political connections to influence legislation on behalf of another party. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the pharmaceutical industry has 1,659 registered lobbyists which is more than 3 lobbyists for each member of congress. In 2008, the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $230 million on lobbying and more than $29 million on contributions to political campaigns. In fact, the pharmaceutical industry spends more money on lobbying than any other industry.

In addition to pharmaceuticals, the FDA also regulates the additives used in processed foods and the labeling used to market them. This is an area of contention as well. Although the food industry isn’t as influential as the drug industry, they still have 359 registered lobbyists, and in 2008, they spent more than $33 million on lobbying and more than $12 million on campaign contributions.

Although the FDA appeared to be doing their job by taking exception to the cholesterol claims made on Cheerios boxes, they don’t seem to care about the ridiculous food labels that exist on so many other food products. Similarly, despite their approval of controversial artificial sweeteners like aspartame and Splenda, the FDA at one time banned the import of stevia which is one of the safest and most natural sweeteners available. However, once Coke and Pepsi invented Truvia and PureVia, the FDA gladly approved these stevia based sweeteners which are less natural but are patentable and therefore have much more profit potential.

FDA Scientists Continue to Speak Out

It’s been quite some time since David Graham’s testimony against the FDA and Vioxx, but unfortunately, it seems that not much has changed. I doubt that the FDA will allow another mistake as big as Vioxx, but that certainly doesn’t mean that they’re cleaning up their act for the right reasons. In fact, earlier this year, a number of FDA scientists sent letter to President Obama describing the corruption within the FDA and indicating the tremendous need for reform.

Who to Trust?

It’s abundantly clear that we can’t trust the drug industry, and the food industry isn’t very trustworthy either. The government agency appointed to protect us from these industries simply isn’t doing its job. With the right perspective, however, this could be a blessing in disguise because it requires us to take responsibility for our health which is something that we should be doing anyway. The best way to do this is to educate yourself, commit to a healthy lifestyle, and when in doubt, abide by the laws of nature. Unlike big industry and the FDA, nature has no lobbyists, is completely impartial, and will never lie.

If you’d like to learn more about the FDA and what you can do to promote change, visit the American Association for Health Freedom’s site about Reforming the FDA.

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.

Swine flu has been a hot topic since last spring and was predicted to spread during this year’s flu season. Although the prediction is holding true and it seems that more people than normal are sick right now, the swine flu is still not the deadly pandemic that the media warned us about over the summer, and this is not what President Obama’s emergency declaration was meant to suggest.

The Reason Behind the Declaration

According to the official statement released by the White House, the intention behind the declaration of swine flu as a national emergency is to lessen restrictions on health care facilities and government run health insurance programs. This is expected to minimize the possibility of health care facilities being overwhelmed and sick people being denied treatment as a result.

In this news release from the Associated Press, Dr. Peter Hotez, a microbiology professor and chairman at George Washington University, is quoted as saying “I think the term emergency declaration sounds more dramatic than it really is. … It’s largely an administrative move that’s more preemptive …” Despite this, the thought of a national emergency is probably causing a lot of people to panic even though the swine flu isn’t any more dangerous now than it was prior to the President’s announcement.

CBS News Tells a Much Different Story

CBS News conducted a three month investigation on swine flu and concluded that the majority of people who’ve been diagnosed without being tested probably never had the swine flu and may not have even had the flu at all. Based on this, the prevalence of the swine flu is likely to have been overstated. In fact, CBS asked 50 states for their statistics on lab confirmed cases of swine flu, and to the surprise of many, the vast majority of test results were negative, even for the seasonal flu.

Back in July, the CDC stopped counting individual cases of swine flu and hastily advised that all states stop testing. According to the CDC, since the swine flu was already recognized as a pandemic, this would save resources. However, the CDC has since advised that people who were diagnosed without being tested should be vaccinated due to the uncertainty. Apparently, the CDC is more concerned about conserving resources than the welfare of the people who’ve developed natural immunity to the swine flu and will be risking their health with a potentially dangerous vaccination that they have no need for. Fortunately, it seems that some doctors’ offices have been continuing to test despite the CDC’s recommendation.

According to this old 60 Minutes episode, the 1976 swine flu outbreak was surrounded by quite a bit of misleading propaganda. Perhaps we’re facing more of the same.

The Best Defense Against Swine Flu is Still Being Neglected

Despite the safety concerns regarding the swine flu vaccine and the fact that many health care professionals are refusing to take it themselves, it’s still being perceived as the best defense.

What most people already know but are apparently unwilling to embrace is that they have a much lower risk of catching any type of flu if they’re healthy and have a strong immune system. By today’s standards, it doesn’t take much for the average person to assume that they’re healthier than they really are, and some people would rather accept the risks associated with vaccination than make an effort to get more sleep, reduce their stress, and eat healthier food. Ironically, these are things that we should all be doing anyway to promote optimal health and live better lives.

I’m probably tempting fate by saying this, but many of the people around me have already been sick this fall and I haven’t even had so much as a sniffle. I didn’t catch any of the common illnesses being passed around last year either and can’t remember the last time that I did. This is despite my history with chronic fatigue syndrome which is closely associated with immune deficiency. I certainly don’t think that I’m invincible to the swine flu or any other illness, but I know that the odds are strongly in my favor. I’d much rather error on the side of trusting my immune system and healthy lifestyle habits than expose myself to the unnatural and potentially dangerous ingredients of a vaccination.

Where do You Stand?

Now that the swine flu has been declared as a national emergency, it will undoubtedly have more people thinking about vaccination. In addition, it seems that a lot of children are catching the swine flu, at least where I live, and I’m sure this is a significant concern for many parents. Before you choose to have yourself or your family vaccinated, learn about the risks and weigh them against the benefits so that you can make an informed decision. You can start by visiting the National Vaccine Information Center, which is an excellent resource. In addition, Dr. Mercola has written extensively about this topic and has an entire section of his website dedicated to swine flu articles.

If you’d like to learn more about strengthening your immune system with healthy lifestyle habits, sign up for my free course, 7 Simple Steps to a Leaner, Happier, and Healthier You.

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.

Bill H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, proclaims to “amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve the safety of food in the global market, and for other purposes.” Despite the seemingly good intention of this bill, the regulations that it aims to put into place are not the type of measures that would truly improve the safety of our food supply. Unfortunately, they’re much more likely to worsen it.

A Flawed Approach to Food Safety

In regard to food safety, the government seems to have adapted the symptom chasing mentality of our medical system. Similar to the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), H.R. 2749 suggests that food safety is more about disaster recovery than prevention.

Infection of crops and livestock is an example of a common concern among farmers, but instead of identifying and addressing it’s cause, food safety bills such as H.R. 2749 are designed to react to the problem after it’s occurred. Large industrialized farming operations often sacrifice quality for quantity and provide an inadequate environment for crops and livestock that leads to an increased susceptibility to infection and disease. This is the true threat to food safety, and by ignoring this issue, bill H.R. 2749 is effectively legitimizing the unhealthy and unsustainable practices of most large and industrialized farms.

As long as industrial farmers continue to employ these unnatural practices, regulation and intervention will never truly solve the problem. In addition, the increased regulation will make it harder for the small farmers who raise healthy crops and livestock to stay in business.

What Food Safety Should Be About

As with humans, healthy plants and animals are resistant to infection and disease. By addressing the aspects of industrial farming that compromise the health of crops and livestock, infection and disease would naturally decline and there would be much less need for strict food safety regulations.

Many large farming operations feed their animals an unnatural and poor quality diet and cram them into tight and unsanitary living quarters where they’re deprived of movement and sunlight. To compensate for the poor health that such an environment promotes, these animals are regularly treated with drugs to prevent illness.

Industrialized crop farming isn’t much better. Crops are heavily sprayed with chemicals to fight off predators and are farmed in an accelerated manner that depletes the soil that they’re grown in. Each season, the soil becomes more depleted and results in weaker crops that require more synthetic fertilizer and more chemicals. Predators eventually become resistant to the chemicals which increases their need even more.

Bill H.R. 2749 would make much more sense if it proposed to correct these flawed practices of industrial farming instead of only compensating for them. At the least, responsible farmers who are producing high quality food in a sustainable and safe manner should be excluded from the regulations that industrial farming has created the need for. Instead, bill H.R. 2749 will likely overwhelm many of these farmers and ironically force them to deviate from the safe and sustainable practices that they employ.

Who Really Benefits From “Food Safety”

The symptom driven approach to food safety that’s proposed by bill H.R. 2749 legitimizes the regular use of chemicals and other industrialized farming products. It also creates the potential for the use of such products to be mandated. This means that your favorite local organic farmers could potentially be forced into using pesticides, antibiotics, and other chemicals against their will and in the name of food safety.

Just as the drug industry thrives on chronically ill people who never correct the cause of their problems, large agricultural companies feed off of the flawed industrialized approach that has encouraged farmers to rely on pesticides, antibiotics, and other unnatural products. As such, large agricultural corporations have a significant financial interest in promoting the growth of industrialized farming and often use their political influence to their advantage.

Companies like Monsanto put forth a tremendous effort to show that their products promote sustainability and increase crop yield. Such claims suggest that they’ve found a way to outsmart and outperform nature which clearly isn’t the case. Monsanto has already caused enough trouble with their prior production of outlawed toxins such as DDT, PCBs, and Agent Orange and their current production of agricultural chemicals and genetically modified seeds. They already have a significant amount of control over the food supply and food safety bills like H.R. 2749 will potentially give them even more.

Specifics About Food Safety Bill H.R. 2749

The following are what I consider to be the most significant and problematic aspects of bill H.R. 2749. It proposes to:

• Grant the FDA the ability to establish agricultural practices that all farmers must follow.
• Increase the FDA’s power in a vague manner.
• Give the FDA the authority to quarantine entire geographic areas.
• Impose extreme financial penalties for non compliance.
• Require excessively detailed traceability of food production.

Although this type of regulation may be needed for industrial farmers, it will likely be a significant problem for smaller farmers who use natural methods to raise healthy crops and livestock. When we go out of our way to buy from such a farmer, we’re choosing to do so based on our alignment with their practices, standards, and ethics. Allowing the FDA to dictate how these farmers operate will likely eliminate this choice and make it easier for corporate interests such as Monsanto to influence the standards that all farmers would be forced to follow. Furthermore, the overhead imposed by such regulation will make it more challenging for smaller farmers to even stay in business.

If you’d like more detail about H.R. 2749, you can read the detailed analysis provided by the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund. If you’d like even more detail, you can read bill H.R. 2749 in it’s entirety.

Protect Your Choice and Take Action!

The FDA approves the use of many unhealthy food additives such as artificial sweeteners, food coloring, preservatives, and flavor enhancers. Despite piles of evidence that have shown additives such as aspartame and MSG to be highly dangerous, the FDA still approves their use. Are you comfortable with the prospect of such an organization having the authority to mandate how your food is produced?

I’m certainly not and I hope you’ll join me and voice your opposition by signing the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund’s petition against H.R. 2749.

This article is part of Fight Back Fridays.

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.

What is Stem Cell Research?

Embryonic stem cells are unique cells that can develop into any type of specialized cell that exists in the human body. It’s believed that these cells can be used to reverse significant damage and serious disease, and this is why it’s such a hot research topic. For example, stem cells could be used to replace dead muscle tissue in a heart attack victim or repair spinal tissue and give someone who’s paralyzed another chance to walk.

Some of the serious conditions that stem cell research is intended to address include Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, spinal cord injury, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis. As such, the dramatic life changing potential of this research is quite obvious. However, despite this potential, the use of human embryos and the concept of regenerating human tissue is too morally unsettling for some people to support it.

The Moral Dilemma

To some, stem cell research is a naive attempt by humans to “play god.” I typically don’t like the idea of science attempting to outsmart nature, but how can you refuse a paralyzed accident victim the possibility of being able to walk again?

One of the major moral conflicts is the use of embryos. Because they must be destroyed for the research, and because they represent the earliest stage of human life, many consider their use to be unacceptable. However, millions of people are using fertility clinics and having embryos created in a lab. If it’s acceptable to create them in a test tube, freeze them, and discard them if unused, then why isn’t it acceptable to use them for revolutionary research?

Another significant moral concern is that embryonic stem cell research will lead to forms of human cloning. This is definitely a frightening topic, and in my opinion, is inviting science to become arrogant and lose respect for nature. Perhaps cloning an entire human organ can save lives, but where do you draw the line? While that’s a difficult question for society to deal with, I don’t think the potential of stem cell research should go unrecognized based on the possibility of it being misused. Besides, those who have influence and want to experiment with cloning will find ways to do it regardless of it’s legality.

Perhaps a better compromise is needed that will allow embryonic stem cell research to advance, but will limit the potential of it being used for questionable purposes. I don’t know what that would be, but I feel that disallowing it completely would be a poor choice.

Lifestyle will Always Matter Most

With or without the advancement of embryonic stem cell research, the foundation of good health will always be a healthy lifestyle. Many of the conditions that embryonic stem cell research is predicted to reverse are often a result of unhealthy lifestyle choices. As such, I fear that advances in stem cell research will make people feel as if they can get away with these unhealthy choices. I think it will reduce fear of disease and lessen the incentive for people to live healthier lives, and this could have a negative impact on all of us.

Perhaps stem cell research will create more trouble than it’s worth. However, I can’t help thinking about accident victims who’d miss out on the chance to walk again and others who are suffering severely from no fault of their own. It’s these victims of misfortune more so than those suffering from their own doing that inspire me to support embryonic stem cell research. I just hope it will be used wisely and responsibly.

Replace What You Take Away

When depriving someone of something they value, it’s only fair to replace it with something comparable. The opponents of embryonic stem cell research are looking to deprive some very unfortunate people of a precious opportunity. Instead of merely opposing embryonic stem cell research and shattering the hopes of these people, I suggest that opponents of stem cell research give back by advocating the healthier lifestyle habits that will greatly reduce the incidence of the diseases that the research aims to reverse. By doing so, you just may end up saving your own life as well!

What do You Think?

What are your thoughts on embryonic stem cell research, and what do you think of President Obama’s decision to lift federal limits?

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.

Small farmers are the most significant source of high quality organic food. If you don’t understand why their longevity so important, I suggest you read my articles about toxic meat and why to buy organic.

NAIS – The National Animal Identification System

NAIS is an animal identification system that the USDA has been trying to mandate for about 5 years. According to the USDA, the program is intended to improve food safety, but in reality, it’s more likely to worsen it.

Under this program, anyone owning livestock would be required to register their property, tag each animal with a computerized chip, and report the activity of each animal to the USDA. This even applies to some pet owners. For example, someone owning just a single horse would have to register their property and report to the government each time the horse was taken off the property.

While this program could potentially be useful for the regulation of large factory farms, it’s far too extreme for small farmers and can even be considered unconstitutional. Adding insult to injury, farmers would be required to buy the equipment needed to follow the program. If the hassle doesn’t push small farmers out of business, then the expense will!

Food Safety – What a Joke!

As I said, this program is intended to improve food safety. With a mandatory “48 hour traceback”, the USDA argues that they’ll be better able to manage the spread of disease outbreak, but wouldn’t it make a lot more sense for a food safety program to prevent disease rather than just manage it?

Because small farmers tend to follow natural and organic farming practices, they raise healthy animals that rarely get sick. This is in direct contrast to the factory farms where sickness is common and antibiotics are used as a preventative measure. While the practices of small farmers represent what food safety should be about, the NAIS program would make life more difficult for these small farmers than anyone else.

Furthermore, if the USDA is serious about food safety, perhaps they should revisit their own inspection process. In 2007, over 22 million pounds of ground beef were recalled despite every package of it being inspected by the USDA!

Is it About Safety or Politics?

Possibly the scariest aspect of NAIS is the potential control that it gives the government. Based on the political influence of agricultural companies like Monsanto, this control can easily lead to small farmers being forced to implement the highly toxic and destructive practices that these companies promote and profit from. With this in mind, do you really want the government deciding how your food is produced?

If you’ve never heard of Monsanto, I highly recommend that you visit Millions Against Monsanto and educate yourself about this dangerous company and the strong political influence they have.

Finally, consider who benefits most from NAIS. Technology companies will certainly benefit from the tags and computer systems that the program requires. More importantly, agricultural companies like Monsanto will benefit by their products being a part of the “best practices” imposed on farmers to control disease outbreak. In contrast, the small farmer gets nothing but grief and we lose the ability to choose where our food comes from. In my opinion, this sounds a lot more like corporate cronyism than a food safety program!

Take Action!

If you have any regard for your right to choose where your food comes from, please take action by opposing NAIS! The following website makes it very easy to send a letter to the USDA stating your opposition.

Take Action: Stop NAIS

Unfortunately, speaking out against NAIS may not be enough. New legislation has been proposed in Congress that will combine the USDA and FDA into a single “Food Safety Administration”, but also create a backdoor for the USDA to mandate the NAIS program. You can voice your opinion against this legislation as well through the following website.

Oppose Bill H.R. 875

For more information on NAIS and this proposed legislation, visit:

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance

NoNAIS.org

The Death of Organic: UndergroundWellness.com audio interview with Linn Cohen-Cole

Why NAIS Must be Stopped: Video presentation about NAIS by the Environmental Conservation Organization

Monsanto and the Schoolmarm Method of Punishing Farmers An article by Linn Cohen-Cole describing the political connections of Monsanto in regards to this legislation.

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.

Wasting Talent

During the 2008 Olympics, I was excited to watch Phelps attempt to rewrite history by winning 8 gold medals during a single Olympics. However, once I saw the coverage of his “gold medal diet”, I immediately lost interest in his pursuit.

As a health fanatic, I admit I have a biased opinion, but it’s undeniable that excellent health is an integral part of getting top performance from your body. In my opinion, an athlete that neglects his or her health is no better than one that’s too lazy to train. It results in underutilized talent and nobody likes to see this in an athlete.

The Lesser of Two Evils

Since most people regard Phelps’ awful diet with a joking manner, and since his use of marijuana is invoking a much more serious response, I thought it would be interesting to compare the effects that these two issues could have on his health and performance. Assuming Phelps is not a regular user, I question if the health risks associated with his marijuana use are even comparable to the risks associated with his diet. If you think I’m crazy for questioning this, keep in mind that by following an unhealthy diet, each and every unhealthy meal eaten is an insult to the body. Repeated day after day and year after year, the damage adds up!

Health Risks of Marijuana

As with cigarettes, even though marijuana is a natural substance, it’s smoke is highly toxic. Within the respiratory system, it damages cells, promotes infection, and causes cancer. Anyone who’s ever tried to swim a few laps in an Olympic sized pool should adamantly agree that reduced lung capacity would be a death sentence for a world class swimmer.

Furthermore, marijuana suppresses the immune system. A sick athlete is an athlete that can’t train or compete, and that certainly isn’t conducive to top performance.

Finally, a single occurrence of marijuana can impair memory for up to 6 weeks. Perhaps Phelps is having trouble remembering that he’s a world class athlete!

Health Risks of the “Gold Medal Diet”

Let’s have a look at the diet of the most decorated Olympian of all time.

Breakfast:
2 cups of coffee
3 egg sandwiches with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions, and mayonnaise
5 egg omelette
1 bowl of grits
3 slices of french toast with powdered sugar
3 chocolate chip pancakes

Lunch:
1 pound of pasta
2 ham and cheese sandwiches on white bread with mayonnaise
1,000 calories of energy drinks

Dinner:
1 pound of pasta
1 full pizza
1,000 calories of energy drinks

I understand that athletes need additional carbohydrates to support the extreme demands they put on their bodies, but Phelps is practically living on nothing but sugar and this is a train wreck waiting to happen.

Sugar and refined carbohydrates such as white bread and pasta are converted into blood sugar much faster than most natural whole foods. This causes a spike in blood sugar that can be a significant burden for the body to manage. Eventually, this burden often leads to type 2 diabetes and results in the body being unable to regulate high blood sugar. This is extremely dangerous and can lead to blindness, nerve damage, kidney failure, heart disease, atherosclerosis, high blood pressure, and even the need for amputation.

Even if volatile blood sugar swings don’t lead to diabetes, they can very easily degrade your health. For Phelps, this would mean less energy, less resistance to sickness, and less capacity to train and compete. And similar to marijuana smoke, sugar also suppresses the immune system and degrades health even further. This is not good thing for the performance a world class athlete!

Furthermore, high quality proteins and fats are absolutely essential for repairing the extensive breakdown that occurs within the body of an athlete, especially one that trains as intensely as Michael Phelps. The only source of quality fat and protein in his diet is egg which is simply not enough. As a result, his body is compensating by also using the processed and denatured fat that he’s getting from cheese, pasta, and grain.

During the Olympics, the television coverage of Phelps’ diet did include some quality food such as chicken and vegetables, but relative to everything else he eats, it was only a small amount and still not nearly enough.

The Suspension

As I said, USA Swimming primarily suspended Phelps because of the poor example that his marijuana use projected to the kids that idolize him. That’s completely understandable, but what about the example he’s setting with his diet? Is it acceptable for these kids to think they need to fill up on sugar and refined carbohydrates to swim like their idol?

The suspension is obviously based on the fact that marijuana use is illegal, but that doesn’t change the reality of the situation.

Is Phelps a “True” Athlete?

In my opinion, a true athlete does everything they can to maximize their potential. In contrast, Phelps’ diet and his use of marijuana detract from his potential, but because of his incredible talent and intensive training, he’s still able to achieve amazing results. Will this be enough after 4 more years of the same unhealthy habits? And will it prevent him from realizing his full potential? Speaking for myself, I’d hate to see even a single bit of his amazing talent go to waste.

I know that the life of a professional athlete can become monotonous and that we all need a bit of outside fun once in a while, but what’s the point of all the hard work if it’s being undermined with unhealthy lifestyle habits? If Phelps really cares about getting the most out of his talent, he should be eager to clean up his diet and put aside his bong. Athletes tend to have short careers, and if he’s so inclined, he’ll have many years during retirement to indulge in unhealthy habits.

By 2012, I hope to see Phelps become a “true” athlete and shatter his own records instead of merely utilizing just enough of his talent to beat the rest of the field.

Until then, I think Michael Phelps is a dope for letting any of his talent go to waste. And yes, the pun was fully intended! If for no other reason, I at least hope he’ll improve his diet for the sake of his health. If he doesn’t, he may end up spending his retirement days promoting cholesterol medication along with Mark Spitz!

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.

I recently wrote an article about the FDAs hypocritical stance on the natural sweetener stevia, but that just scratches the surface. Millions of people are eating unhealthy foods and taking dangerous drugs that are all recommended and approved by the FDA when there are much safer and more effective natural alternatives. However, the FDA does their best to hide these alternatives from us because they take away profit from their corporate friends.

Take Action

With momentum against the FDA mounting and a new administration taking office, now’s the time to fight for integrity. As their slogan says, the FDA is supposed to protect and promote our health. It’s time to make them live up to it.

Fortunately, there is a non profit organization that is dedicated to this specific cause. They are called ReformFDA.org and are a partner organization of The American Association for Health Freedom. You can learn more about who they are from their website.

You can also learn more about the misguided intentions of the FDA and how you’re affected by reading “What You Should Know About the FDA.”

Most importantly, make a difference by signing this petition to tell Congress that the FDA needs reform!

Learn More

NaturalNews.com has been providing thorough coverage on the corruption of the FDA. Here are a few of their recent articles.

• FDA Approves Some New Drugs Illegally
• FDA Running Extortion Racket: Natural Supplement Companies Threatened with Arrest if They Don’t Pay Up
• FDA Scientists Accuse Own Administration of Corruption, Intimidation and Scientific Censorship

The New York Times has also been reporting on controversial issues with the FDA.

• Not What We Call Due Diligence
• In F.D.A. Files, Claims of Rush to Approve Devices
• F.D.A. Is Lax on Oversight During Trials, Inquiry Finds

Closing Thoughts

Although the FDA is indirectly undermining the health of millions of people, it’s still no excuse for poor health. While they may be harder to find, there are plenty of excellent resources available to help you achieve and maintain excellent health. However, the responsibility is on you to educate yourself from these resources and put into practice what you learn. The first step in this direction is to understand the benefits of optimal health that you may presently be missing out on.

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.

Stevia is a genus of plant commonly found in South America. The extract of one particular species of this plant, rebaudiana, has been used as a natural sweetener in South America for over 1,000 years and in Japan since the 1970s. It has no calories, has no effect on blood sugar, and is up to 300 times sweeter than sugar. For a long time, stevia has been highly regarded in natural health circles as an excellent and natural alternative to sugar.

The Ban

In 1991, based on controversial research, the FDA banned the use and import of stevia in America. Under pressure, the FDA later revised their policy in 1995 to allow the use of stevia, but only under the regulations of a dietary supplement.

However, as recently as 2007, the FDA has made claims that stevia is unsafe. Although it’s approved for use as a dietary supplement, it’s not approved for use as a food additive and the FDA has denied multiple requests for stevia to be used in food.

What About Aspartame?

Aspartame is the synthetic sweetener found in products like Nutrasweet and Equal and is the sweetener used in popular diet sodas such as Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi. It’s considered by many to be the most dangerous food additive on the market and is associated with serious disorders including cancer and severe allergic reactions that can lead to seizure and death. As such, you shouldn’t take the dangers of aspartame lightly.

If the FDA is so concerned about safety, why have they had such issue with a natural plant based sweetener while overlooking the dangers of a toxic chemical? And despite the dangers of aspartame, it’s use is still alive and well. All you have to do to confirm this is look for Nutrasweet or Equal packets in a restaurant or read the list of ingredients on a can of Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi.

Money Talks

The two new stevia based sweeteners approved by the FDA, Truvia and PureVia, are associated with the makers of Coke and Pepsi respectively. Stevia itself is not patentable because it’s a natural substance, but when you apply a processing formula and add a few ingredients, it is. And having a patent brings the money making potential to justify the high cost of FDA approval. Of course this is just my opinion, but it certainly sounds like the FDA suddenly changed their mind about stevia once Coca-Cola and PepsiCo came knocking on their door with their checkbooks in hand.

If you don’t believe the FDA would do such a thing, you may want to read this article about what FDA scientists are admitting.

Who to Trust?

On the FDA’s website, right on their logo, it says “protecting and promoting your health” with the emphasis on “your” just as I typed it. But who’s health are they promoting, ours or the food industry’s?

If you can’t trust the FDA, then who can you trust? That’s a very important question for anyone hoping to achieve optimal health. Although it’s a question that requires finding your own answer, you shouldn’t trust an opinion based solely on the credentials of it’s source. It’s your responsibility to be well informed and able to think critically when assessing your needs because the only person truly accountable for your health is you!

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.

Anyone who is well informed about good health knows that our medical system is seriously lacking in it’s focus on prevention. Most doctors are great at alleviating symptoms, but they can’t help you correct the root problem that’s causing them. In most cases, they don’t even try. You can read the article I wrote about chasing symptoms for a deeper explanation.

What is Prevention?

In terms of our health and our medical system, prevention can be interpreted several ways. I consider it to mean the avoidance of disease through a healthy lifestyle. The problem is that most people just don’t know what a healthy lifestyle truly is, even if they think they do. They get their information primarily from the media, but the media is heavily influenced by food and drug manufacturers that don’t always have our best interests at heart.

A Need For Change

We all know that corruption exists within the government because we hear about it all the time. In regards to our health, we’re the victims of large food and drug corporations using their deep political connections to lobby for legislation that benefits them. As a result, we’re more likely to be exposed to harmful foods or drugs, and even worse, these foods and drugs may even be marketed to us as being healthy and necessary.

During his campaign, Barack Obama spoke about bringing more of a prevention based focus to the health care system. Because of my interest in natural and holistic health, I remember this clearly. He also spoke quite a bit about the corruption that exists within government and his intention to fight it. This had me hopeful for the possibility of a medical system that would begin to prioritize optimal health above hiding symptoms, even if it was to the dismay of the drug and food industries.

A Disappointing Choice

When I read the news that Barack Obama selected Dr. Sanjay Gupta as his top choice for Surgeon General, it left me feeling a bit deflated. After the strong Obama campaign that left many people inspired, many were also skeptical and could only hope that he’ll actually follow through. For me, this news further justifies the skepticism.

I don’t know a great deal about Dr. Gupta, but I do know that he’s deeply rooted in the same type of symptom chasing conventional medicine that has failed a staggering number of unhealthy Americans. I’m also aware that he has ties to the drug industry that make him a poor candidate to fight the heavy lobbying influences that food and drug corporations have on government policy.

What Does This Mean?

In my opinion, it means more of the same. In addition, the changes our medical system is in desperate need of are enormous and aren’t going to happen overnight. Even if Obama does live up to his campaign, changes are likely to be slow and gradual. So what does this mean?

Regardless of what happens with the medical system or the Obama administration, there is one thing that will never change. Nobody is more responsible for your health than yourself. If you want to feel your best and be disease free, you absolutely have to take full responsibility. Good health doesn’t come from the prescription you bring home from a doctor’s visit. It comes from the lifestyle choices you make every day, week, month, and year prior to that visit.

What are your thoughts on the prospect of Dr. Gupta being our Surgeon General? Do you think he’ll help make America a healthier country?

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.