The Kevin Trudeau Show: 3-16-10

Today, Kevin explains how low Barack Obama will go just to get his healthcare bill passed and why people in higher power always end up losing their sense of morality.

Plus, get the headlines you aren’t hearing anywhere else:
Vitamin D Proven More Effective Than Vaccines at Preventing Flu
WHO Admits Cell Phones Cause Brain Tumors
Bananas May Prevent HIV Transmission
Former FDA Commissioner ‘Ordered’ Agency Not to Enforce DSHEA
IMF Proposed Plan to Raise Climate Change Funds
Gender-Bender Chemicals Are Turning Boys Into Girls
Dean Foods Pulls Bait-n-Switch!
3D TV May Be The Future Despite Fears of Causing Health Problems
Weed Killer Known to Chemically Castrate Frogs 
E.Coli & Chicken Feces Allowed by USDA
Illinois Residents Scared by Local Cancer Study
Heart Treatments for Diabetes Causing Harm
Plavix Gets New FDA Warning
It’s ALWAYS About The Money
Maximize Your Downline

Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
 

Click below to hear The Kevin Trudeau Show RIGHT NOW!!!

Challenge of the Raw Milk Ban

March 2, 2010

Grist.org

By David Gumpert

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund is taking on the Big Enchilada in the raw milk war: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s prohibition on interstate shipment of raw milk.

The FTCLDF filed suit over the weekend in U.S. District court against FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg, and the secretary of the FDA’s parent agency, Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, challenging the constitutionality of the agency’s prohibition, enacted in 1987. It filed the suit on behalf of consumers and a farmer from six different states; the consumers all travel from states where raw milk sales are illegal to buy it in states where it’s allowed for sale and the farmer sells to out-of-state consumers.

The suit is notable for seeking to shift the focus of the interstate raw milk prohibition to consumers from farmers, where the FDA has focused its efforts, most notably in prosecuting the largest raw dairy in the country, Organic Pastures Dairy Co. in California, for selling milk outside its home state. The agency was behind a criminal case against the dairy, which ended with a guilty plea last year and an agreement by the dairy to confine its sales to California, and a civil case, which is still pending. The agency has also been active behind the scenes in urging crackdowns on raw milk in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New York, among other states.

The case is also notable for the FTCLDF, which was formed less than three years ago to counter an aggressive FDA-led campaign against raw milk producers that began in 2006. While the legal organization has filed suits against state agriculture officials on behalf of raw dairy farmers in New York, Wisconsin, and California, as well as a suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture on behalf of farmers affected by the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), this is its first encounter with the FDA, and as such, definitely the biggest case in its brief history.

All the consumer plaintiffs in the suit live in states where raw milk sales are prohibited—New Jersey, Iowa, North Carolina, and Georgia. The suit says the consumers buy their milk in neighboring states where raw milk is legal, and are being forced to break the law each time they travel back home with their milk.

The suit charges that “all Plaintiffs are being deprived of their fundamental and inalienable rights of (a) traveling across State lines with raw dairy products legally obtained and possessed; (b) providing for the care and well being of themselves and their families, including their children; and (c) producing, obtaining and consuming the foods of choice for themselves and their families, including their children.”

At stake, it says, are “the Constitutional Right to Travel; the Constitutional Right of Privacy; the substantive due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution; Article 1, Section 1 of the United States Constitution (the Separation of Powers/Non-delegation doctrine) … “

According to Gary Cox, the lawyer for the FTCLDF, “This case challenges the legality of the FDA rule that bans the interstate distribution of raw milk in final package form for human consumption.  It also challenges the legality of FDA’s ‘standard of identify’ for milk which requires that all milk needs to be pasteurized.”

Ironically, the FDA was dragged kicking and screaming back in the 1970s and 1980s into its current role of policing the transport of raw milk across state lines. It resisted the efforts of consumer groups to involve the agency-feeling the matter was a local issue-until a federal judge in 1987 responded to a consumer group suit by ordering the agency to draft regulations about the interstate shipment of raw milk. Since then, it has shifted from reluctant participant to aggressive enforcer and warning source against raw milk consumption. Its dairy chief, John Sheehan, is famous for his line, “Consuming raw milk is like playing Russian roulette with your health.”

To continue reading this report, click here.

Government Pushing Toxic Chemical to Farmers for Crops

February 22, 2010

Natural News

By Ethan A. Huff

The federal government is pushing farmers to use a toxic byproduct of the coal burning industry to fertilize and loosen the soil in their crop fields. Initiated under the Bush administration as a beneficial use for the substance, efforts by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continue to advocate for the widespread use of synthetic gypsum in agriculture.

Called flue gas desulfurization gypsum, or FGD gypsum, this synthetic powder is produced by coal plant “scrubbers” that remove sulfur dioxide from plant emissions. Sulfur dioxide is the chemical that causes acid rain to occur. FGD gypsum is a white, powdery substance that some believe will help to enrich crop field soil.

The current administration has been pushing for the agricultural use of FGD gypsum despite the fact that it is known to contain toxic heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic. According to the EPA, the mercury contained in FGD gypsum does not affect plants and runoff into water supplies at “significant” levels. As far as the other heavy metals are concerned, the EPA is holding to the mantra that the levels are minute, contending that using in in crop fields is perfectly safe.

Last year, a coal ash pond just outside of Knoxville, Tennessee, spilled, flooding about 300 acres of land with ash and killing many fish in the area. The spill damaged many homes as well and cleanup costs are expected to be upwards of $1 billion. This catastrophe has prompted the EPA to draft regulations on how to handle toxic coal waste safely.

The EPA would not comment, however, about its support for FGD gypsum in agricultural use in light of the spill and the damage it caused. If the waste from coal plants is toxic and must be dealt with in a manner that keeps it contained, many are wondering why the EPA would promote the same waste for use on crops.

In 2001, the USDA partnered with the EPA to promote FGD gypsum use. Since that time, the amount of the substance used by farmers on their fields has triple. According to the American Coal Ash Association (ACAA), nearly 280,000 tons of the byproduct was spread on fields last year.

Thomas Adams, executive director of the ACAA indicated that almost nine million tons of the roughly 18 million tons of FGD gypsum produced last year was used to make drywall. He believes that finding new ways to recycle the substance is preferable to dumping it in landfills.

Click here for the full report

Deceptions in Organic Labeling

January 21,2010

Organic Consumers Association

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA), along with certified organic personal care brands Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, Intelligent Nutrients, and Organic Essence, today filed a complaint with the USDA National Organic Program (NOP), requesting an investigation into the widespread and blatantly deceptive labeling practices of leading “Organic” personal care brands, in violation of USDA NOP regulations.

The complaint, filed collectively on behalf of 50 million consumers of organic products, argues that products such as liquid soaps, body washes, facial cleansers, shampoos, conditioners, moisturizing lotions, lip balms, make-up and other cosmetic products produced by twelve different corporations have been advertised, labeled and marketed as “Organic” or “Organics” when, in fact, the products are not “Organic” as understood by reasonable consumers.

“Unfortunately, the hands-off regulatory approach by the USDA’s National Organic Program during the Bush years failed to protect consumers from deceptive labeling in the personal care marketplace,” said Ronnie Cummins, Executive Director of the Organic Consumers Association. While the USDA enforces strict standards for the labeling of organic food, the NOP has not enforced the organic regulations in regards to personal care. “Given the increased resources and staffing at the National Organic Program under Obama, we’re optimistic that the situation will be rectified before too much more damage is done,” added Cummins.

“Consumers who pay a premium for high-end organic products expect the main cleansing and moisturizing ingredients of a product labeled ‘Organic’ to be made from certified organic agricultural material produced on organic farms, and not from petrochemicals or pesticide and herbicide-intensive conventional farming,” explains Horst Rechelbacher, founder of Intelligent Nutrients (and founder and previous owner of Aveda Corp).

The corporations named in the complaint are The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.; Kiss My Face Corporation; YSL Beaute, Inc. (“YSL”); Giovanni Cosmetics, Inc. (“Giovanni”); Cosway Company, Inc. (“Cosway”); Country Life, LLC (“Country Life”); Szep Elet LLC (makers of Ilike Organic Skin Care); Eminence Organic Skin Care, Inc.; Physicians’ Formula Holdings, Inc. (makers of Organic Wear); Surya Nature, Inc.; Organic Bath Company, Freeman Beauty Division of pH Beauty Labs, Inc. (makers of Freeman Goodstuff Organics).

David Bronner, President of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, stated, “Yesterday we re-filed our lawsuit in federal court against culprit companies under the Lanham Act for false advertising. One way or another, the era of ripping off organic consumers in personal care will soon come to an end.”

Ellery West, founder and owner of Organic Essence adds, “The predatory marketing practices of companies that take advantage of consumer trust in the organic label are cheating not only organic consumers but also small certified companies like ourselves.”

On November 5, 2009, the USDA National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) formally recommended that the National Organic Program regulate personal care to ensure that any use of the word “organic” on a personal care product is backed up by third-party certification to USDA organic standards. Immediately following the recommendation, the OCA launched a consumer boycott of the major “Organic” cheater brands, and has produced a list of USDA certified organic brands that are true to their claims and are safe for organic consumers.

Click here to read full report

Window Cleaning Chemical Injected Into Fast Food Meat

January 5, 2010

Natural News

By Mike Adams

If you’re in the beef business, what do you do with all the extra cow parts and trimmings that have traditionally been sold off for use in pet food? You scrape them together into a pink mass, inject them with a chemical to kill the e.coli, and sell them to fast food restaurants to make into hamburgers.

That’s what’s been happening all across the USA with beef sold to McDonald’s, Burger King, school lunches and other fast food restaurants, according to a New York Times article. The beef is injected with ammonia, a chemical commonly used in glass cleaning and window cleaning products.

This is all fine with the USDA, which endorses the procedure as a way to make the hamburger beef “safe” enough to eat. Ammonia kills e.coli, you see, and the USDA doesn’t seem to be concerned with the fact that people are eating ammonia in their hamburgers.

This ammonia-injected beef comes from a company called Beef Products, Inc. As NYT reports, the federal school lunch program used a whopping 5.5 million pounds of ammonia-injected beef trimmings from this company in 2008. This company reportedly developed the idea of using ammonia to sterilize beef before selling it for human consumption.

Aside from the fact that there’s ammonia in the hamburger meat, there’s another problem with this company’s products: The ammonia doesn’t always kill the pathogens. Both e.coli and salmonella have been found contaminating the cow-derived products sold by this company.

This came as a shock to the USDA, which had actually exempted the company’s products from pathogen testing and product recalls. Why was it exempted? Because the ammonia injection process was deemed so effective that the meat products were thought to be safe beyond any question.

What else is in there?
As the NYT reports, “The company says its processed beef, a mashlike substance frozen into blocks or chips, is used in a majority of the hamburger sold nationwide. But it has remained little known outside industry and government circles. Federal officials agreed to the company’s request that the ammonia be classified as a ‘processing agent’ and not an ingredient that would be listed on labels.”

Fascinating. So you can inject a beef product with a chemical found in glass cleaning products and simply call it a “processing agent” — with the full permission and approval of the USDA, no less! Does anyone doubt any longer how deeply embedded the USDA is with the beef industry?

Apparently, this practice of injecting fast food beef with ammonia has been a well-kept secret for years. I never knew this was going on, and this news appears to be new information to virtually everyone. The real shocker is that “a majority” of fast food restaurants use this ammonia-injected cow-derived product in their hamburger meat. It sort of makes you wonder: What else is in there that we don’t know about?

“School lunch officials and other customers complained about the taste and smell of the beef,” says the NYT. No wonder. It’s been pumped full of chemicals.

There are already a thousand reasons not to eat fast food. Make this reason number 1,001. Ammonia. It’s not supposed to be there.

You can get the same effect by opening a can of dog food made with beef byproducts, spraying it with ammonia, and swallowing it. That is essentially what you’re eating when you order a fast food burger.

It’s almost enough to make you want to puke. If you do so, please aim it at your windows, because ammonia cuts through grease like nothing else, leaving your windows squeaky clean!

Click here for the full report

Where’s the Truth In Food Labeling?

January 8, 2010

Business Week

By Robert Preidt

 Many reduced-calorie restaurant and packaged foods in the United States have more calories than indicated on their nutritional labeling, a new study reports.

Tufts University researchers analyzed 29 quick-serve and sit-down restaurant foods and found they contained an average of 18 percent more calories than the stated values. The team also checked 10 frozen meals bought from supermarkets and found they had an average of 8 percent more calories than what was printed on the label.

Three of the supermarket-purchased meals and seven restaurant foods contained up to twice their stated amount of calories.

An added complication was identified with some restaurant meals. Five restaurants provided side dishes at no extra cost, and the average amount of calories in the side dishes was greater than for the entrees they accompanied, the researchers reported.

The study appears in the January issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

“These findings suggest that stated energy contents of reduced energy meals obtained from restaurants and supermarkets are not consistently accurate and, in this study, average more than measured values, especially when free side dishes were taken into account, which on average contained more energy than the entrees alone,” wrote the researchers, led by Susan B. Roberts, director of the Energy Metabolism Laboratory at Tufts’ Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging.

They noted that a “positive energy balance of only 5 percent per day for an individual requiring 2,000 kcal/day could lead to a 10-pound weight gain in a single year.”

Not only could this hamper people’s attempts to control their weight, the researchers wrote, but it also could “reduce the potential benefit of recent policy initiatives to disseminate information on food energy content at the point of purchase.”

Click here for the full report

2010 Food Crisis Means Financial Armageddon

If you read any economic, financial, or political analysis for 2010 that doesn’t mention the food shortage looming next year, throw it in the trash, as it is worthless. There is overwhelming, undeniable evidence that the world will run out of food next year. When this happens, the resulting triple digit food inflation will lead panicking central banks around the world to dump their foreign reserves to appreciate their currencies and lower the cost of food imports, causing the collapse of the dollar, the treasury market, derivative markets, and the global financial system. The US will experience economic disintegration.

The 2010 Food Crisis Means Financial Armageddon

Over the last two years, the world has faced a series of unprecedented financial crises: the collapse of the housing market, the freezing of the credit markets, the failure of Wall Street brokerage firms (Bear Stearns/Lehman Brothers), the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the failure of AIG, Iceland’s economic collapse, the bankruptcy of the major auto manufacturers (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler), etc… In the face of all these challenges, the demise of the dollar, derivative markets, and the modern international system of credit has been repeatedly forecasted and feared. However, all these doomsday scenarios have so far been proved false, and, despite tremendous chaos and losses, the global financial system has held together.

The 2010 Food Crisis is different. It is THE CRISIS. The one that makes all doomsday scenarios come true. The government bailouts and central bank interventions, which have held the financial world together during the last two years, will be powerless to prevent the 2010 Food Crisis from bringing the global financial system to its knees.

Financial crisis will kick into high gear

So far the crisis has been driven by the slow and steady increase in defaults on mortgages and other loans. This is about to change. What will drive the financial crisis in 2010 will be panic about food supplies and the dollar’s plunging value. Things will start moving fast.

Dynamics Behind 2010 Food Crisis

Early in 2009, the supply and demand in agricultural markets went badly out of balance. The world experienced a catastrophic fall in food production as a result of the financial crisis (low commodity prices and lack of credit) and adverse weather on a global scale. Meanwhile, China and other Asian exporters, in an effort to preserve their economic growth, were unleashing domestic consumption long constrained by inflation fears, and demand for raw materials, especially food staples, exploded as Chinese consumers worked their way towards American-style overconsumption, prodded on by a flood of cheap credit and easy loans from the government.

Normally food prices should have already shot higher months ago, leading to lower food consumption and bringing the global food supply/demand situation back into balance. This never happened because the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), instead of adjusting production estimates down to reflect decreased production, adjusted estimates upwards to match increasing demand from china. In this way, the USDA has brought supply and demand back into balance (on paper) and temporarily delayed a rise in food prices by ensuring a catastrophe in 2010.

Overconsumption is leading to disaster

It is absolutely key to understand that the production of agricultural goods is a fixed, once a year cycle (or twice a year in the case of double crops). The wheat, corn, soybeans and other food staples are harvested in the fall/spring and then that is it for production. It doesn’t matter how high prices go or how desperate people get, no new supply can be brought online until the next harvest at the earliest. The supply must last until the next harvest, which is why it is critical that food is correctly priced to avoid overconsumption, otherwise food shortages occur.

The USDA—by manufacturing the data needed to keep supply and demand in balance—has ensured that agricultural commodities are incorrectly priced, which has lead to overconsumption and has guaranteed disaster next year when supplies run out.

An astounding lack of awareness

The world is blissful unaware that the greatest economic/financial/political crisis ever is a few months away. While it is understandable that general public has no knowledge of what is headed their way, that same ignorance on the part of professional analysts, economists, and other highly paid financial “experts” is mind boggling, as it takes only the tiniest bit of research to realize something is going critically wrong in agricultural market.

USDA estimates for 2009/10 make no sense

All someone needs to do to know the world is headed is for food crisis is to stop reading USDA’s crop reports predicting a record soybean and corn harvests and listen to what else the USDA saying.

Click here for the full report

USDA to Test School Lunches on Lawmakers

December 11, 2009

The Washington Post

By Jane Black

Chicken fajita strips, sliced ham and canned green beans: That’s what’s for lunch one day next week for some lawmakers and congressional staffers, courtesy of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The menu offers the same products, known as commodity foods, that the agency provides every day to public schools across the nation.

The goal of next week’s tasting is to show lawmakers the improvements the department has made in the nutritional quality — and taste — of the $1.2 billion in school commodity foods and to win support to fund further improvements. With one-third of American children overweight or obese, the USDA has been working to cut salt and fat and provide more fruits and vegetables.

“These guys are moving in the right direction,” said Tony Geraci, food service director for Baltimore City public schools and a pioneer for healthful foods in schools. “Is it fixed? Hell, no. But at least now we’re having conversations about this. Before, it was straight-up stonewalling.”

The tasting is also an attempt to rehabilitate the reputation of the commodity foods program, which provides 15 to 20 percent of the food served in U.S. school cafeterias. Officially called USDA Foods, the program has long been perceived as a conflict of interest in the department’s mission: to support American farmers and ranchers while overseeing nutrition programs for low-income families and school children.

Is the program a way to distribute meats, cheeses and other commodities that couldn’t find a buyer on the open market? Or is the department really making choices based on public health?

Improving the quality of food provided free to schools is important at a time when school budgets are being squeezed. President Obama has proposed an additional $1 billion for child nutrition programs, including school lunch, in his 2010 budget.

But in the face of a projected federal deficit of $1.3 trillion , even the strongest supporters of school-lunch reform say that Congress is unlikely to approve a substantial funding increase when it takes up the issue next year.

To prepare for the Capitol Hill debut next week, the USDA offered samples to Secretary Tom Vilsack, who tried more than a dozen products, including canned green beans, apple slices and hamburger patties.

On paper, anyway, the green beans looked good. They are formulated to meet USDA specifications and have 64 percent less sodium than commercially available canned beans. For the 2010 school year, the agency has mandated that canned vegetables have no more than 140 milligrams of sodium per serving, 71 percent fewer than in the Food and Drug Administration’s “healthy” standard.

The hamburger patties, developed for a pilot program last year to help fight childhood obesity, were 95 percent lean. The most similar commercial beef patty available is 92 percent lean.

The USDA offers more than 180 fresh and processed foods to schools, up from 54 in 1981. The products are provided to schools free, based on the number of students eligible for government assistance. Schools buy the rest of their ingredients from commercial suppliers.

School food directors say the quality of available commodities is excellent — if schools choose wisely. The USDA offers high-quality dried fruits, nuts, brown rice, legumes and unprocessed meat, among other things.

Click here for the full report

Meat Industry Using Tactics to Distract From e.coli Contamination

December 7. 2009

Food Business News

By Steve Bjerklie

In several recent public appearances, executives with the American Meat Institute, including president and chief executive officer J. Patrick Boyle, have stated that the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in beef products is going down, and they’ve used data from the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to support the claim. Using test data from the F.S.I.S., the A.M.I. has in particular emphasized that from 2000 through 2008, E. coli prevalence in ground beef dropped 45%, suggesting the beef industry’s various efforts to control the pathogen have been effective.

But Barbara Kowalcyk, director of food safety for the Center for Foodborne Illness, Research & Prevention in Grove City, Pa., and a doctoral student in molecular epidemiology and environmental health, said the A.M.I. is misusing the data to paint a rosy picture for consumers that’s dishonest. In a strongly worded statement released last month, in which she called Mr. Boyle’s recent comments about E. coli reduction in beef “inappropriate and misleading,” Ms. Kowalcyk wrote: “U.S.D.A.’s E. coli O157:H7 microbiological testing program is strictly regulatory and was not statistically designed to estimate the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef. Different establishments are sampled each year. Further, the methods used to select establishments and to conduct the microbial testing have changed over the years. As a result, it is inappropriate to make year-to-year comparisons. Several sources, including U.S.D.A. itself, have noted the limitations of the data obtained from U.S.D.A.’s Verification Testing Programs.”

“I don’t think it’s possible to draw any conclusions about the prevalence of E. coli from these data,” she said. “This is not a small issue, this is a big one.”

Jim Hodges, executive vice-president of the A.M.I. and director of the American Meat Institute Foundation, which supports scientific research, said he doesn’t necessarily dispute Ms. Kowalcyk’s statements.

“She takes a pure view of how these numbers are derived,” he said. “Fundamentally, I don’t disagree with her. But the fact is, everyone uses these numbers to look at trends – F.S.I.S. does it, C.D.C. does it, everyone does it. If we wanted to be perfectly accurate, we’d say there has been a significant reduction in E. coli, but people want to know how much, so we use percentages to show a trend.

“I guarantee you trends are important to everyone,” he added. “And that’s all we’re trying to communicate. The point is trends, not actual numbers.”

Ms. Kowalcyk isn’t buying it. She said it isn’t accurate to compare selected year-to-year data from tests that were never intended to point toward a trend. She said the test data collected in 2008 came from a different group of beef plants than the test data from eight years earlier. The side-by-side comparison does show a 45% drop, she admitted, but likens such a comparison to comparing someone who weighed 300 pounds in 2000 to someone else who weighed 150 pounds in 2008 and drawing the conclusion that people in general have experienced a 50% drop in weight.

“If you want to do a trend analysis, let’s be honest about it,” she said. “The misuse of statistics is what gives statistics a bad name,” adding that U.S.D.A.’s own Web site misapplies E. coli test data to prove trends that don’t exist.

She also said the A.M.I.’s recent claims that C.D.C. data show that E. coli infections have decreased 44%from 2000 through 2008 are also misleading and ignore more recent trends.

“In actuality, C.D.C does not compare individual years of FoodNet data (i.e. 2008 versus 2000). Rather, C.D.C. compares the data for a given year to a composite of the 1996-1998 FoodNet data and to a composite of the preceding three years, which in this case would be 2005-2007 FoodNet data. This is done to account for changes in the number of FoodNet sites and changes in the size of the population. It is true that, when comparing the 2008 FoodNet data to the 1996-1998 composite, E. coli O157:H7 infections have decreased 25%,” she said last month. “However, when comparing the 2008 FoodNet data to the 2005-2007 composite, E. coli O157:H7 infections have not changed significantly.”

Mr. Hodges responded: “Our numbers probably over-estimate the prevalence of E. coli. They’re regulatory samples and tend to be biased toward where the problems are. But they’re the best data we’ve got. To not use them is a complete disservice to the public.”

Ms. Kowalcyk and Mr. Boyle appeared together in October on a segment of CNN’s “Larry King Live” interview program in which beef safety was the focus, following a New York Times report that uncovered serious lapses and gaps in the industry’s efforts to control E. coli.

Ms. Kowalcyk herself has a direct connection to the issue: her two-and-a-half year-old son Kevin died in 2001 from O157:H7 poisoning that apparently came from adulterated ground beef that was later subject to a recall.
“It very much concerns me when the government or industry puts out information that can give the public a false sense of security,” she said. FSM

Click here for the full report

Half of US Kids To Need Food Stamps

November 30, 2009

Red Orbit

According to a recent study, nearly half of all U.S. kids will receive government food stamps at some point during their childhood, reports the Associated Press. 

The study’s numbers have opened up a proverbial can of worms in the public debate regarding how this data should be interpreted and what it says about the direction of the country.

The study, conducted by a team of sociologists from Cornell University and Washington University, appeared this month in the journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 

The researchers examined 30 years of data from around the country and found that U.S. children actually face a significant risk of experiencing poverty at some point during their youth — a fact which they say puts their health and well-being in danger.

Though food stamps were originally an initiative of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the programs themselves are actually carried out by state governments. 

Recent annual reports from the USDA stating that more than half the states have not been able to help some of the nation’s neediest citizens have further exacerbated concerns over the study’s results.

The USDA also reported that 15 percent of American households did not have what it calls “food security” in 2008 — up by 4 percent over the previous year and the highest level observed since the agency first began keeping records in 1995.

Yet in a country where the lowest earning classes also statistically suffer from the highest levels of obesity, the various reports have also stoked a debate over how we define “poverty.”

Policy analyst Sarah Meadows believes that the various statistics are highly probable but also cautions that people should keep in mind that they don’t mean that half of all American children are always in need of food stamps.

“While there may be a group of children who are persistently exposed to poverty, many move in and move out,” she told AP.

Statistician Andrew Gelman of Columbia University offered a similar analysis, stating that the recent study sheds light on the common misconception “that people are either on welfare or they’re not.” The reality of the situation is that while some families are more or less permanently on welfare, many more utilize government assistance for short periods of time, often during professional transition periods or other instances of temporary financial hardship.

Senior research fellow for the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector, claims that while the research’s figures are technically correct, the parameters and definitions used to define and measure “poverty” are largely subjective and tend to exaggerate the seriousness of families’ situations.

According to Rector, the report creates “a picture of alarm that is just not justified by the facts.”

For example, to be eligible for food stamps, a family of four must have a net annual income below $22,000.  While not necessarily ‘living the high life,’ the majority of these families often enjoy a number of modern amenities — such as televisions, internet, and automobiles — that would be considered luxuries in a majority of the world’s countries.

Others, like family welfare specialist and former employee of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Olivia Golden, have a different perspective on the matter.

According to Golden, U.S. children can lack “economic stability” even if they aren’t necessarily suffering from destitute poverty.

“There are several levels of economic disadvantage and we should worry about all of them,” Golden told AP.

Social policy professor at the University of Washington Marcia Meyers, takes a similar line, admitting that while most of the poor in the U.S. “are not on the verge of literal starvation,” they may nevertheless be getting poor quality, unhealthy foods.

This, she believes, likely helps explain why many of the nation’s poorest often see the highest rates of obesity.

Click here for the full report

Next Page »