Huge quantities of raw materials are needed for mobile phones, copper pipes or wind turbines. Things that we Europeans naturally use are produced in South America under the harshest conditions. It’s a filthy business.
Latin American politicians are still relying on exports of raw materials to fuel unchecked economic growth – policies that go back more than 400 years to colonial times. The price is paid by the very same people who are affected by the consequences. The Europeans who benefit from the raw materials from South America are partly to blame. Cerro de Pasco in Peru is considered one of the dirtiest cities in the world because of its proximity to Swiss company Glencore’s gigantic open-cast mine, which extracts zinc, silver and lead for the world market. Anyone living in Cerro de Pasco absorbs heavy metals via tap water. The levels it contains are well above the World Health Organization’s threshold values. La Rinconada, what was once a small village 5,000 meters up in the Andes, has been gripped by gold fever for more than ten years and its population has exploded to more than 50,000 in that time. Gold from there is usually flown to Switzerland by courier. At the same time, La Rinconada itself has degenerated into a vast garbage dump, with rubbish piled up for miles at the entry to the town.
The greed for raw materials is growing and growing – and recently triggered a disaster in Brazil. At the Brumadinho iron ore mine in January 2019, a retention basin burst and buried more than 250 people in toxic sludge. Previously, Germany’s TÜV technical aid organization had classified the reservoir as safe. An earlier, similar accident didn’t result in tougher laws and the mine operators did not even pay the fines imposed on them by the courts. The new president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, also continues to focus on deregulation. Before the disaster, he even wanted to leave the safety controls to the mine operators themselves. The unregulated mining of raw materials is rapidly spreading across South America, even into what were largely undeveloped regions. Indigenous populations are putting up a fight – and often paying with their lives.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has continued its glyphosate cover-up by announcing Thursday that they have finished and published their regulatory review and found that glyphosate is ‘not a carcinogen’.
In a statement released Thursday the agency said; “EPA has concluded
that there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is
used according to the label and that it is not a carcinogen.”
The EPA’s findings contradict the findings
of a working group of 17 experts from 11 countries from the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), who in 2015
classified glyphosate as a ‘Probable Human Carcinogen’.
Also in 2015 Sustainable Pulse uncovered a 30 year cover up
by Monsanto and the EPA, related to the probable carcinogenicty of
glyphosate, the World’s most used herbicide and according to Sustainable
Pulse Director, Henry Rowlands, “as expected the cover-up simply
Rowlands continued “One thing that helps the EPA continue to assist
companies such as Bayer/Monsanto to harm public health, is the fact that
there are a lack of independent comprehensive studies out there on the
harm being caused globally by glyphosate-based herbicides, due to a lack
of available funding. This is something that the Global Glyphosate Study is trying to put right.”
Bayer / Monsanto, which produces the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, is currently facing more than 75,000 court cases
in the U.S., some of which have already proven that Roundup is
carcinogenic and specifically that it causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Dr. Charles Benbrook, Project Coordinator of the Heartland Study,
reacted to the EPA’s announcement; “I am flabbergasted at this
decision. There is NOTHING — ZERO — in the EPA decision to reduce worker
exposures and risks.
How can the EPA ignore the thousands of comments highlighting the
need for EPA to recover its spine and require Bayer/Monsanto and other
registrants to take out the high-risk surfactants in glyphosate-based
herbicides (GBHs), so the GBHs sold in the US are as safe as the
reformulated products now sold in Europe?
And why did the EPA not require registrants to add onto labels a
requirement for mixer-loaders and applicators to wear gloves, long
sleeve pants, chemical-resistant shoes (aka rubber boots), especially
for applicators using hand-held equipment and spraying a GBH for several
hours per day, over many days per year, as part of their job, or in
keeping up with weeds on their rural property, homestead, or farm?
This irresponsible action by the EPA sets the stage for a concerted
campaign by activists and public health advocates to ban all uses of
GBHs. For obvious reasons, their prime target won’t be this EPA, and
will instead focus on major food companies.”
Food companies are already reacting in the U.S. and elsewhere around the globe by signing up to The Detox Project’s Glyphosate Residue Free certification for their products, which is now one of the fastest growing certifications in North America.
“It is time for consumers to show our industry-supporting government regulators that it really doesn’t matter if they try to hide the truth, we can all make a difference by forcing change at the check-out,” Rowlands concluded.
Dr. David M. Amudavi, executive director of the Nairobi, Kenya-headquartered Biovision Africa Trust,
told a session on global trends in organic that while conventional
agriculture remained the major focus across the continent, more interest
was now being shown in organic.
“The space for organic has historically been limited, but research
has demonstrated very effectively that organic farming can contribute to
increased yields and lower cost of inputs of production,” Amudavi said.
He added that “important new initiatives|” were also demonstrating
organic “important contribution to climate change mitigation”.
Amudavi said that the amount of organic farming in Africa remains
modest. Organic land in the 10 countries on the continent with the
highest amount of organic farming totals around 2 million hectares,
world by 789,000 producers (with Tunisia, Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia and
Keyna taking the top five positions).
Amudavi says the that more research and improved data capture is needed. “We need the type of research effort that made the Green Revolution happen. We don’t want to be activists – we want to present the research evidence, the economic argument for organic. If the case is strong and supported by research we are less vulnerable to criticism. We need to get beyond the question that policy-makers so often ask, ‘can organic feed the continent?’.”
Milk drinkers are turning their backs on dairy in favour of plant-based milks billed as kinder to the planet. Are they all more sustainable than cow’s milk?
You don’t need to go far today to find some kind of plant-based milk.
Soy and rice milk are no longer confined to the dusty shelves of health
food stores, and other substitutes like oat, coconut, and even hemp
milk are now widespread in coffee shops and supermarket aisles.
While in the past those who opted for almond rather than dairy milk
might have done so to take a stand for animal rights or because they’re
lactose intolerant, many people are now switching to plant-based milks
in response to the growing climate crisis. So which one is actually best
for the environment? And how do they stack up against dairy in terms of
The good news is that most – perhaps all – non-dairy milks come out
better than cow’s milk when you look at their carbon emissions, how much
land they take up and how much water they use.
Joseph Poore, a researcher at the University of Oxford, published a study in 2018 which looked at the environmental footprint of some food and drink. Later he extended the analysis to include plant-based milks, looking at the impact of soy, oat, rice, and almond milk on the environment. He found that all of those plant milks fared better than cow’s milk.
In terms of carbon emissions, almond, oat, soy, and rice milk are all
responsible for around a third or less of the emissions dairy milk puts
out, with almonds the lowest of the bunch at 0.7kg per litre, followed
by oat (0.9kg), soy (1kg), then rice (1.2kg). Dairy milk is responsible
for 3.2kg of emissions per litre of milk.
Land use shows an even more dramatic split, with nine square metres
of land needed to produce just a litre of dairy milk, compared with less
than a one square metre for plant-based milks, ranging from 0.3 sq m
for rice milk to 0.8 sq m for oat milk.
Even almond milk, a notorious water-hogger, takes less water to
produce than dairy – needing on average 371 litres of water per litre of
milk produced, compared to dairy milk’s 628 litres. Rice milk follows
shortly behind, needing 270 litres of water per litre of milk. Soy and
oat, on the other hand, need just 28 and 48 respectively.
In fact, for some plant milks, the environmental impact of the crop itself is almost negligible in comparison to dairy. “The environmental impact of the milk itself, the soy milk and the oat milk for example, is so small that it is actually the packaging and the transport that becomes the dominant component,” says Poore.
An outbreak of a new coronavirus was identified in the city of Wuhan in China in early December 2019. A large family of viruses that can cause illnesses ranging from the common cold to more serious ones such as ‘Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome’ (SARS), coronaviruses are transmitted between animals and people. With the mainstream media stoking up panic over the outbreak and government reactions growing more dramatic by the day, advice for the public provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) has once again failed to make any mention of the safety and effectiveness of natural therapies against viral diseases.
Designated 2019-nCoV, the new coronavirus was declared a ‘Public
Health Emergency of International Concern’ by the WHO on 30 January
2020. Under international health regulations adopted in 2005, such a declaration gives the WHO enhanced powers to coordinate a global response.
On 3 February, with China accusing
the United States of causing panic and spreading fear over the
outbreak, shares on the Chinese Shanghai stock market suffered their
biggest fall in four years. Financial analysts began appearing in the
media claiming the virus could result in a global economic slowdown.
On 6 February the WHO reported
there were 28,276 confirmed cases of the virus. The vast majority of
these (28,060) were in China, where there had been 564 deaths. The
remaining 216 cases came from a total of 24 additional countries and had
resulted in one death.
Is the coronavirus panic justified?
In reality, many people who contract the new coronavirus will
experience only mild symptoms, such as fever, coughing and respiratory
problems. Many may be unwell and not even realize they have the virus.
This essentially makes it impossible to know for sure how many cases of
the virus there really are. In all likelihood the actual number of
people affected globally could be significantly higher than that quoted
by the WHO.
Despite the dramatic headlines in the mainstream media, most people
who contract the virus can expect to make a full recovery. However, it
can pose a risk for the elderly and people suffering from pre-existing
conditions such as diabetes, cancer and immune-related problems.
By means of a comparison, the World Health Organization’s own estimates
show that annual influenza epidemics result in a global total of up to 5
million severe cases of illness each year, causing up to 650,000
At national level, estimates
from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
suggest that between 1 October 2019 and 25 January 2020 there had been
up to 26 million cases of influenza in the United States alone. These
may have resulted in up to 310,000 hospitalizations and 25,000 deaths.
Clearly therefore, both in terms of the number of cases and the resulting deaths, the scale of the threat posed to human health and life by influenza is far greater than that posed by the new coronavirus.
Natural ways to protect yourself from viral diseases
It is a scientific fact that all viruses that have been investigated
can be blocked by specific micronutrients. In particular, vitamin C is
known to decrease or completely block the replication of all viruses it
is applied to. Even in cells chronically infected with HIV, vitamin C
has been shown to reduce viral replication
by more than 99 percent. It is also known that all viruses spread in
the body using enzymes known as collagenases. Such enzymes can be
partially or completely blocked by means of the amino acid lysine. The
effectiveness of micronutrients in improving immune function is already
part of every textbook of biology.
Dr. Rath’s research has shown that a specific combination of micronutrients can support and enhance the immune system. In addition to vitamin C, they include vitamin A, vitamin E, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, folic acid, iron, magnesium and calcium.
VITAMIN C – Vitamin C has proven beneficial effects on immune function.
VITAMIN A – Studies show that having a sufficient amount of vitamin A is essential for immunity.
VITAMIN E – Vitamin E is an important micronutrient for maintaining the immune system.
VITAMIN B6 – Vitamin B6 has been shown to increase immune responses, even in critically ill patients
VITAMIN B12 – Vitamin B12 plays a key role in cellular immunity.
FOLIC ACID – Folic acid is proven to assist normal immune cell function.
IRON – A lack of iron negatively affects immune response.
CALCIUM – A properly balanced
Why the WHO isn’t telling you this
Given the existence of scientific knowledge on safe and effective
natural ways to control viral epidemics, we have to ask ourselves why it
is that the WHO is failing to share this lifesaving information with
the people of the world. The answer is simple: the WHO primarily serves
the interests of the trillion-dollar-a-year pharmaceutical industry.
For anyone who doubts this, consider the fact that multinational
pharmaceutical companies and their investors figure prominently among
the WHO’s donors. Multibillionaire Bill Gates’ foundation is now the WHO’s second largest funder after the United States government. The Gates Foundation spends billions of dollars on drug research. Tellingly, it is also closely involved with the pharma industry in a billion-dollar research initiative to prepare for future viral epidemics.
By failing to share scientific knowledge on safe and effective natural ways to control viral epidemics, the WHO has failed to live up to its claimed mission of promoting health, keeping the world safe, and serving the vulnerable. Ultimately, therefore, to achieve a world in which all peoples attain the highest possible level of health, the WHO will eventually have to be replaced with a new global body tasked with making natural preventive health approaches a human right. Such a global body will see promoting science-based natural health education as one of its highest priority tasks.