The Merck corporation has pled guilty to a criminal charge over the marketing and sales of the painkiller Vioxx. In a negotiated settlement, they agreed to pay $950 million, which includes the resolution of civil cases and federal and state fraud cases. While doctors can prescribe drugs for any purpose they see fit, drug companies are prohibited from marketing them for uses not approved by the FDA.
Vioxx was pulled off the market in 2004 because evidence showed that it posed a substantial heart risk.
The New York Times reports:
“No person was held liable for Merck’s conduct. ’It’s just a cost of doing business until a pharmaceutical executive does a perp walk,’ said Erik Gordon, a pharmaceutical analyst”.
Executives of Synthes North America, a medical devices company, have been sentenced to prison for unapproved tests of bone cement that left three people dead. According to the judge, the Synthes officials wanted to beat their competitors to market without going through the lengthy process of getting FDA approval.
Instead, they conspired to train select surgeons to use the bone cement in unapproved ways and publish their findings. They continued the program even after two patient deaths in 2003, caused by sharp drops in blood pressure caused when the bone cement compound was injected into their spines.
Drug Discovery and Development reports:
“Former President Michael Huggins … and former Senior Vice President Thomas B. Higgins … were sentenced to nine months in prison. John J. Walsh …the former director of regulatory and clinical affairs, worked at the West Chester-based company less time and received a five-month sentence. Former Synthes Vice President Richard Bohner … had his sentencing postponed after his lawyer became ill in court … All four executives have lost their careers and agreed to pay fines of $100,000 apiece.”
An organization known as the GAVI Alliance has launched a new campaign to vaccinate up to 2 million women with the HPV vaccines Cervarix or Gardasil by the year 2015. These vaccines have been shown to have very dangerous side effects, up to and including death. Nine countries are being targeted by the campaign.
The GAVI Alliance has financial backing from the World Bank, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the vaccine industry, among others.
According to Natural Society:
“Merck is offering GAVI a deep discount on Gardasil, down to $5 per vaccine from $15 per three-dose course. While this may seem thoughtful, as GAVI appears to make 0 profit from their ‘generous’ act of dishing out the deadly Gardasil vaccine on poor nations, Merck stands to make a substantial profit. Thanks to a GAVI co-financing policy, recipient countries are required to contribute toward the cost of the vaccines. This guarantees that not only Merck, but Gavi as well, will receive considerable amounts of cash from the 9 unknown countries in which the HPV shots are being administered.”
Monsanto has long been trying to establish control over the seeds of the plants that produce food for the world. They have managed to help get laws passed which state that their genetically modified seeds are patented and belong to them. But they intentionally spread these seeds to organic farms — after which they take the farmer to court with the intent of bankrupting them and putting them out of business.
This is exactly what happened to Percy Schmeiser of Saskatchewan, Canada. Percy worked on farming and developed his own seeds for 50 years, and Monsanto threatened him, intimidated him, and tried to take his land away. But Percy didn’t give in, and eventually beat them in court.
According to Wake Up World:
“Monsanto threw everything and the kitchen sink at Percy and his wife and Percy fought back … But mainly Percy did not quit and he persisted in numerous court challenges that Monsanto threw his way to stop one Canadian farmer with guts and ethics.”
Dr. Franz Adlkofer recently spoke at Harvard Law School, discussing the difficulties he and other scientists face when researching the carcinogenic effects of cell phones. He said that institutional corruption was obstructing research.
Adlkofer described his experience with the REFLEX study, which demonstrated that low frequency and radio frequency electromagnetic fields, even below the allowed exposure limits, could damage DNA.
According to Harvard Law School:
“In 2004, shortly after releasing those findings, Adlkofer was the target of allegations questioning the validity of the findings and even accusing him of fraud. While an ethics panel eventually dismissed the accusations, his struggle against slander continues”.
The relationship between doctors and drug company marketers is finally falling under increased scrutiny, but a new group is stepping in to take drug company money — journalists and media organizations looking for easy funding.The Australian, a newspaper in Australia run by the Murdoch empire, has accepted an undisclosed amount of sponsorship money from the drug industry for a series of articles on health policy.
The idea was first proposed at a meeting between advertising agents.Many are saying that such financial closeness between journalists and the companies they report on raises concerns.
According to an article in the British Medical Journal:
“… [W]hat we’re witnessing is a slow and subtle attempt to buy influence and goodwill within the media, which in general have become increasingly rigorous in their coverage of the unhealthy aspects of pharmaceutical marketing … Spreading around cash, free travel, and sponsorship has an effect — if it didn’t, the industry wouldn’t do it.”
Drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline has preliminarily agreed to a $3 billion settlement over the sales and marketing practices of its drugs, including the diabetes treatment Avandia. Avandia was withdrawn by the European Medicines Agency, and was given restricted marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, after it was shown to increase the risk of cardiovascular events.
The final settlement is still under negotiation and will be finalized sometime in 2012.
According to PM Live:
“The company said payments could be funded through existing cash resources … Recent changes in the way the company operates include the establishment of a new framework for compliance in the U.S.”
If you buy special shampoo for your baby, you probably assume that you are not putting carcinogens onto your child’s head. But you if live in the U.S., this may in fact be the case.
Health and environmental groups have been asking Johnson & Johnson to remove two potentially cancer-causing chemicals from its baby shampoo. Dioxane, a likely carcinogen, is present in Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Shampoo, Oatmeal Baby Wash, Moisture Care Baby Wash and Aveeno Baby Soothing Relief Creamy Wash. The shampoo also contains quaternium-15, which releases formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.
According to Jezebel:
“Johnson & Johnson … [claims to be] working on reformulating its baby products and gradually phasing [out] the chemicals. That may sound like a reasonable response, but the company doesn’t need time to create new formula, because it’s already selling a carcinogen-free version of its baby shampoo in various other countries.”
Close to 20 states or cities in the U.S. are considering the possibility of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. Organizations that have called for reductions in sugar-sweetened beverage consumption include the World Health Organization, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Heart Association, Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The beverage industry, however, has been flexing its economic and political might in ways reminiscent of the tobacco industry during the 1950s. The arguments they are making are the same as the ones that were made on behalf of cigarettes decades ago — that the taxes are “discriminatory” in singling out one category of food, that taxes will not work, and that government should not tell people what to do.
According to Time Magazine:
“Similar to tobacco companies, the soda industry has created a front group, Americans Against Food Taxes, to run anti-tax campaigns … The tobacco industry paid scientists who did research disputing links between smoking and lung cancer, the addictive nature of nicotine, and the dangers of second-hand smoke. The soda industry funds scientists who reliably produce research showing no link between [sugar-sweetened beverage] consumption and health … The beverage industry has been successful thus far in fighting off significant taxes through heavy lobbing, questionable tactics, and the attempt to appear public-health minded, but they, too, are likely to be embarrassed as light shines upon them.”
Have you ever wondered if there was a reason that your child’s
school cafeteria offered foods like Apple Jacks, Pop-Tarts, Giant Goldfish Grahams
and Otis Spunkmeyer muffins?It turns
out that the manufacturers of those sugar-laden products pay hefty rebates to
giant food service companies to encourage them to purchase their highly
processed goods. In fact, nearly everything that goes into running a public
school cafeteria comes with a rebate check to help make sure the industrial
version of food wins out.
For example, more than 100 companies paid rebates in recent
years to Chartwells, the food service management company hired by D.C. Public
Schools.The list includes General
Mills, Kraft, Kellogg’s, ConAgra, and Tyson.
According to La Vida Locavore:
“John
Carroll, an assistant New York State attorney general investigating rebating
practices there, has said rebates pose ‘an inherent conflict of interest’ in
school feeding programs because they favor highly processed industrial foods
… Produce vendors can’t afford to pay a rebate for local apples.”
Last fall, a small group of CEOs from companies like Whole Foods and Stonyfield pled their case to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack — genetically engineered crops and their capacity to contaminate organic crops, they said, were no longer a small-scale problem. But Vilsack soon became a champion of the concept of “coexistence”, trying to find common ground between organic and GMO growers. In late January of 2011, the administration greenlighted the unregulated planting of bioengineered alfalfa and two other bioengineered crops (sugar beets and a type of corn).
A study released last month by Food & Water Watch reports that in the decade between 1999 and 2009, some $547 million was spent on lobbying and campaign contributions to reduce regulation and prevent labeling of genetically engineered crops. The report also examines the potential risks of such foods, including increased allergies, superweeds, and unknown long-term health effects.
The Daily Beast reports:
“A Canadian study this year found that the blood of 93 percent of pregnant women sampled and 80 percent of their umbilical-cord blood contained a pesticide put into GMO corn by Monsanto … The Obama administration, says food author Michael Pollan, is ‘playing a complex game, trying to appeal to both camps.’ And, for now at least, leaving consumers guessing.”
In recent years, boxes of the “Fruit Roll-Ups” manufactured by General Mills began featuring labels touting their nutritional benefits. A new lawsuit from the Center for Science in the Public Interest(CSPI) has accused the company of false advertising.
The class action suit alleges that General Mills is guilty of misleading the public with the packaging of the “fruit flavored snack”. The packaging contains terms like “naturally flavored,” a “good source of Vitamin C,” “low calorie,” “low fat,” and “gluten free.”
According to Jezebel, CSPI argues:
“Defendant’s Fruit Snacks contained trans fat, added sugars, and artificial food dyes; lacked significant amounts of real, natural fruit; and had no dietary fiber. Thus, although the Products were marketed as being healthful and nutritious for children and adults alike, selling these Fruit Snacks was little better than giving candy to children.”
An article on cell phone safety in the journal Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine reports that cell phones kept in the shirt or pants pocket exceed FCC exposure guidelines. It also found that children absorb twice as much microwave radiation from the phones as adults. In fact, not only do children absorb twice the cellphone radiation to their heads, they absorb up to triple in their brain’s hippocampus and hypothalamus, have greater absorption in their eyes, and absorb as much as 10 times more in their bone marrow.
The safety standards developed by the cell phone industry are based on a large man whose 40 brain tissues are assumed to be exactly the same, rather than relying on anatomically based models of people of various ages.
According to Newswise:
“In the United States, the FCC determines maximum allowed exposures. Many countries, especially European Union members, use the ‘guidelines’ of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a non-governmental agency. “
Organic foods are required by U.S. federal law to be produced in ways that promote ecological sustainability, without common toxic and genetically engineered ingredients. But organic products are increasingly being forced to compete with products that are labeled as “natural.”
There are no restrictions on the term “natural”, and it often constitutes nothing more than meaningless marketing hype.
According to a report from the Cornucopia Institute:
“Unlike the organic label, no government agency, certification group or other independent entity fully defines the term ‘natural’ on processed food packages or ensures that the claim has merit … [There is a] vast differences between organic cereal and granola products and so-called natural products, which contain ingredients grown on conventional farms where the use of toxic pesticides and genetically engineered organisms is widespread.”
The drug company Zeneca Group, manufacturer of the breast cancer drugs Arimidex and Tamoxifen, founded National Breast Cancer Awareness Month in 1985 in order to promote x-ray mammography — and their own products. But recent research shows that x-ray mammography screening may help only 1 person per 2,500 screened, while at least 1,000 of those 2,500 will have a false alarm, 500 will undergo an unnecessary biopsy, and 5 or more will receive even more extreme unnecessary treatment. Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence indicates that the x-rays used in breast screenings are up to 500% more carcinogenic than previously assumed.
It is important to note that the Zeneca Group (which is now known as AstraZeneca) is a subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), which has produced millions of pounds of known mammary carcinogens such as vinyl chloride. AstraZeneca’s best-selling cancer drug Tamoxifen is actually itself classified by the World Health Organization as a carcinogen. A number of experts and organizations are concerned by this glaring conflict of interest.
According to Green Med Info:
“When it comes to the breast cancer industry’s emphasis on equating ‘prevention’ with ‘early detection’ through x-ray mammography, nowhere is the inherently pathological ideology of allopathic medicine more clearly evident. Not only is the very ionizing radiation used to discern pathological lesions in breast tissue one of the very risk factors for the development of breast cancer, but the identification of the word ‘prevention’ with ‘early detection,’ is a disingenuous way of saying that all we can do to prevent breast cancer is to detect its inevitable presence sooner than would be possible without this technology … Fortunately there are thousands of scientific studies extant today on the therapeutic value of foods, herbs and spices in breast health”.
Junk food is contributing to skyrocketing rates of diabetes, high blood pressure, and even strokes — and not just among adults. But food and beverage companies spend billions of dollars promoting unhealthy foods almost everywhere kids go. “We’re Not Buying It,” exposes deceptive marketing to children, debunks industry claims, and highlights the latest research.
Monsanto is now producing a ready-to-eat packaged broccoli. The new product, called Beneforté, was quietly launched last October. This vegetable is not genetically modified, and is advertised as being a “naturally better broccoli”.
The main selling point is that the product “boosts the body’s antioxidant enzymes at least 2 times more than other broccoli” because it “naturally contains 2-3 times the phytonutrient glucoraphanin as a serving of other leading broccoli varieties produced under similar growing conditions.”
Of course, this is a bit disingenuous, as Andy Bellatti points out in an article on Grist:
“‘Similar growing conditions’ — there’s an interesting tidbit. For all we know, then, Beneforté’s glucopharanin content could pale in comparison to that of organic broccoli. Of course, this obsession with glucoraphanin is a silly and myopic distraction … None of the myriad of chronic health issues affecting millions of Americans are due to ‘faulty broccoli’ with low levels of glucoraphanin … [L]et’s not allow Monsanto to get away with gimmicky healthwashing.”
The American Dietetic Association (ADA) has approximately 72,000 members, most of whom are registered dietitians. The association is known for accrediting nutrition programs, credentialing professionals, publishing peer-reviewed science, and advocating for public policy. But it has also provoked increasing controversy by working with some of the nation’s largest industrial food producers.
At their annual Food & Nutrition Conference and Expo (FNCE), the show floor contained booths and displays from Monsanto, Hershey’s, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Cargill, Yum! Brands, Nestle, ConAgra, Mars, Inc., Campbell’s, and General Mills.
According to Grist:
“Members look at issues like antibiotic use in animals, clean water issues, and social justice, often finding themselves uncomfortably at odds with some of the messages being promoted by the speakers and corporate sponsors at the FNCE conference. Some have even opted out entirely, giving up the networking, camaraderie, and learning opportunities offered by the conference altogether … [and] corporate influence among [dieticians] isn’t limited to the ADA.”
Received wisdom states that junk food is cheaper than real food, and that this is part of the reason why so many Americans are overweight. But in fact, despite massive government subsidies, highly processed food is much expensive than food cooked at home.
Most people can, in fact, afford real food. Which means, of course, that money alone doesn’t guide decisions about what to eat. In fact, the convenience, pervasive presence, and addicitve nature of processed food may be far more important factors. There are five fast food restaurants for every supermarket in the United States.
According to the New York Times:
“This addiction to processed food is the result of decades of vision and hard work by the industry. For 50 years … companies strove to create food that was ‘energy-dense, highly stimulating, and went down easy …’ Real cultural changes are needed to turn this around.”
Are the words written on food packaging honest? Many corporations hire lawyers to carefully craft words that are just barely on the side of legality. Yahoo Shine has collected eight common package proclamations that you should look out for. Here are a few:
Flavored: Both natural and artificial flavors are actually made in laboratories, and natural flavors are not necessarily healthier than artificial ones.
Pure: ”100 percent pure” products such as orange juice can be doctored with flavor packs for aroma and taste.
Nectar: This is really just a fancy name for “not completely juice.”
Fat free: Some cooking sprays are “fat free” only if they are sprayed for a fraction of a second to produce a microscopic “serving”.
So-called “super weeds” that are resistant to herbicide are boosting costs and cutting crop yields for U.S. farmers. With world food stores already strained, diminished crop production is a serious problem.
The Monsanto corporation made billions of dollars through sales of Roundup herbicide and “Roundup Ready” crops genetically modified to tolerate treatment with Roundup. But the products have begun to cause rampant resistance among weeds.
According to Scientific American:
“Last month, representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture and the Weed Science Society of America toured the Midwest crop belt to see for themselves the impact of rising weed resistance. ‘It is only going to get worse,’ said Lee Van Wychen, director of science policy at the Weed Science Society of America.”
Family doctors now write three times more prescriptions for antidepressants than they did a few decades ago. However, this mainly reflects the success of drug companies in redefining psychological and other conditions as ailments that should be treated with pills.
In a 2003 article called, “The Art of Branding a Condition”, New York advertising executive Vince Parry described how he collaborated with several companies to foster “the creation of medical disorders”.
According to the Telegraph, the following techniques were used:
“First, elevate the importance of symptoms, then redefine an existing condition, before developing ‘a new condition for an unmet market need’. The several instances of this brand conditioning include ‘medicalizing’ normal physical events, redefining psychological traits as quasi-psychiatric illnesses … and, most important, redefining the limits of what is considered normal of some physiological variable such as blood pressure or cholesterol.”
By 2030, two-thirds of the world will lack access to clean water. Watch this movie to learn why corporate control of drinking water may be on the way — and what that might entail.
Key California legislators whos helped to pass an anti-parent vaccine bill received campaign financing from the gigantic Merck drugmaking conglomerate. The bill “authorizes a minor, who is 12 years of age or older, to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.” The bill is commonly is called the “Gardasil Bill” because the major drug to be administered to 12-year-old girls — without their parents’ consent — would be Gardasil, manufactured by Merck.
Current law allows such treatment only with a parent’s permission. The bill passed both houses of the California Legislature and awaits a decision by the governor.
According to the website Cal Watchdog:
“[T]he drug is not without risk … Because there will be no parental notification in California, girls could start dropping dead and their grieving parents won’t even know why.”
To see a list of the legislators who received funding from Merck, you can click on the link below.
In the absence of any real federal regulation, the U.S. meat industry uses hundreds of feed additives, including antibiotics, tranquilizers, pesticides, drugs, industrial waste, and growth-promoting hormones. More than 95 percent of American beef cattle was implanted with carcinogenic growth promoting hormones as of 1990.
But the FDA has simply warned dairy producers that letting their costumers know if their products are “hormone free” could be considered “false or misleading” labeling under federal law, as they believe there is no significant difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.
Of course, to make such statements is to ignore the available evidence completely. According to the book The Politics of Cancer Revisited, by Dr. Samuel S. Epstein:
“The biotech hormone induces a marked and sustained increase in levels of insulin-like growth factor-1, or IGF-1, in cow’s milk … It is highly likely that IGF-1 promotes transformation of normal breast epithelium to breast cancer. IGF-1 maintains the malignancy of human breast cancer cells, including their invasiveness and ability to spread to distant organs.”
If you have ever used Wesson brand cooking oils, you may be able to join a class action suit against food corporation ConAgra’s deceptive marketing.
The Food and Drug Administration has not defined the term natural, so food marketers have been putting the label on whatever products they like. That practice, however, may soon be coming to an end. A lawsuit against ConAgra states that although Wesson oils bear an “100% natural” label, the products are actually made from genetically modified organisms.
According to Food Safety News:
“Four Wesson varieties are implicated in the case: Canola Oil, Vegetable Oil, Corn Oil, and Best Blend … But what makes this lawsuit especially intriguing is its potentially far-ranging impact. According to the Center for Food Safety: ‘upwards of 70 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves — from soda to soup, crackers to condiments — contain genetically-engineered ingredients.’ While it’s unclear how many of these products also claim to be natural, given all the greenwashing going on these days, it’s likely to number in the thousands.”
Nearly every breakfast “staple” — including cereal, donuts, yogurt, bagels, and orange juice — is considered to be a staple only because someone is making money off of it. In the nineteenth century, breakfast was neither cold nor sweet; it was hot, hearty, and full of lard.
Then, in 1894, John Kellogg developed the process of flaking cooked grains. A rift soon formed between Kellogg and his business partner and brother, who wanted to sweeten the cereals in hopes of selling more. Kellogg’s brother won, and marketers would continue to triumph throughout the twentieth century.
Orange juice marketers have succeeded in making their products seem pure and wholesome. In fact, according to Anneli Rufus, writing in AlterNet:
“Major companies use ‘flavor packs’ engineered by the same firms that create perfumes for Dior and Calvin Klein to make their juice smell and taste ‘fresh’ despite its long shelf life … Tropicana, meanwhile, is owned by PepsiCo.”
A new study brings disturbing facts to light on the quality of medication studies cited in top medical journals. According to an independent review of six prestigious journals, reviewers from UCLA and Harvard found that many of the studies were commercially sponsored by the manufacturers, and that these sponsors “may promote the use of outcomes that are most likely to indicate favorable results for their products.” They also said the way in which the outcome data was presented could often be misleading:
“It’s one thing to say a medication lowers your risk of heart attacks from two-in-a-million to one-in-a-million, and something completely different to say a medication lowers your risk of heart attacks by 50 percent. Both ways of presenting the data are technically correct, but the second way, using relative numbers, could be misleading.”