James Gormley's Blog

May 8, 2014

In April, Daniel Fabricant, PhD, ended his three-year tenure as FDA’s Director of the Division of Dietary Supplement Programs. Fabricant has since returned to the Natural Products Association (NPA; Washington, DC), where, prior to joining FDA, he served as vice president of global government and scientific affairs. (FDA has named William Correll interim head of Dietary Supplement Programs. Correll hails from FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.)Nutritional Outlook and industry members will be watching with interest to see how Fabricant’s inside experience at FDA with policy issues such as New Dietary Ingredients and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) informs his work at NPA going forward. Upon Fabricant’s departure from the agency on April 18, 2014, FDA said: “Dr. Fabricant worked hard to strengthen the FDA dietary supplement program,” noting that, during his time there, the agency took several court enforcement actions and issued numerous warning letters to companies, including for adulteration, mislabeling, and GMP violations.Now firmly back at NPA, this time as its CEO—succeeding John Shaw—Fabricant spoke to Nutritional Outlook’s James Gormley about a range of issues, from the future of the NPA, to emerging champions on Capitol Hill, GMPs, and more.READ MOREDan Fabricant's FDA Insights | Nutritional Outlook
 •  flag
0 comments
like  • 
Published on May 08, 2014 13:04 • 17 views

November 9, 2013

By James J. Gormley

Courtesy of Natural Products INSIDER Supplement Perspectives





[Courtesy of 'marsmettn tallahassee'
via Creative Common
s]

Menopause is a life stage, just like puberty. In fact, in an interview I conducted in 1996 an editor for the American Botanical Council (ABC) put it this way:



“In puberty, a girl comes into her power as a woman. In menopause, a woman’s power deepens and strengthens. Menopause is a time for self-reflection—a time to evaluate where one has been, where one is presently, and where one wants to go. It is a time when women experience what Joseph Campbell calls their ‘function to be.’ ”



This initial time of change, referred to as peri-menopause, often kicks in several years before a woman’s last menstrual period. It lasts for one year after her last period, the point in time known as menopause. In fact, a full year without a period is needed before a woman can say she’s been “through menopause.”



The average age of menopause is 51.4, but before this, as mentioned above, usually in a woman’s 40s, changing levels of estrogen and progesterone often signal what are eventually considered symptoms of menopause. Women may have different signs or symptoms during menopause, mainly because estrogen is used by many parts of her body. That does not mean that she will have all, or even most, of them.



Moreover, signs that occur around the time of menopause may actually be a result of growing older, not changes in estrogen, such as: mood changes; hot flashes; osteoporosis; sleep problems; and heart disease.



In modern times, moderate-to-severe menopausal complaints were managed via conventional medicine with hormone replacement therapy (HRT). However, since a body of published research links the use of HRT with increased risks of breast cancer and heart disease, the search for safer alternatives has intensified.



In a 2004 review article by Taya McMillan, MPH, and Saralyn Mark, MD, in the Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, “Forty percent of all menopausal women seek medical attention to alleviate symptoms of menopause.” They added that, “increasing evidence suggests that women are looking to complementary and alternative therapies for management and treatment of menopausal symptoms.”



“While many hormonal, physiological and digestive changes take place during menopause, perhaps the aspect most focused on by women and in medical literature is the symptom of hot flashes—for many women this symptom is one from which they simply want relief,” the ABC added.



Unfortunately not content to allow women to take charge of their own health without medicalizing their bodies, the FDA, at the behest of Big Pharma, on April 29, 1998 proposed re-classifying common conditions associated with natural states, such as hot flashes associated with menopause or premenstrual syndrome associated with the menstrual cycle, as “diseases”—a proposal which generated over 100,000 comments, most of which were in strong objection.



Next time, I’ll look at the aftermath and how the natural products industry can provide a safe and healthful solution.

Click here to read Part 2.



 •  flag
0 comments
like  • 
Published on November 09, 2013 09:14 • 35 views
By James J. Gormley

Courtesy of Natural Products INSIDER Supplement Perspectives



Click here to read Part 1.





In 2006, I asked Jacob Teitelbaum, MD, whether menopause has been politicized.  “Not so much politicized as commercialized,” said Teitelbaum.



“There is big money to be made in supplying hormones to women in menopause. Unfortunately, natural hormones were not able to be patented, so the drug companies used Premarin, which is simply pregnant horse urine. The process for making this was patentable. Because of this, almost all marketing and research was done on Premarin. This was despite holistic doctors saying for over a decade that it was insane to use pregnant horse urine in human females.”



“Now that the research has shown HRT to potentially be dangerous, even though the research suggests that the bioidentical hormones are much safer and likely less noxious in terms of side effects; the drug companies are paying for a very expensive misinformation campaign to mislead the American public,” Teitelbaum added.



“Because bioidentical hormones present a major competition to them (they are cheaper, safer, and simply what your body is used to making), they are paying to make sure that people get confused so that they keep buying the expensive prescription forms of estrogen and progesterone. It reminds me of the old days when doctors were being paid to promote smoking and also to convince mothers that anyone who breast-fed was a primitive who was damaging her child.”



Fortunately, natural support abounds.



Many studies, for example, support the use of black cohosh for relieving menopausal symptoms. In fact, previous trials have shown black cohosh to be as effective as HRT for reducing hot flashes. St. John’s wort has been found to help relieve mild-to-moderate depression. In addition to black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa), other ingredients and products are also on the market, including: red clover; soy; chaste tree (Vitex); hops; dong quai; sage; essential fatty acids; and good, old-fashioned diet and exercise.



In line with this, on October 20th, 2012, the Natural Health Research Institute (NHRI) held its 8th Annual NHRI Scientific Symposium, entitled, “The Effectiveness of Natural Products for Women’s Health.”



The conference covered such topics as: the safety and efficacy record of black cohosh; the benefits of ginseng, kava, kudzu, maca, Pycnogenol, Sibiric rhubarb, St. John’s wort, valerian, omega-3 fats, and multi-ingredient combinations; detailed research into botanical alternatives to HRT, including promising studies on hops, red clover and (once again) black cohosh; and the importance of reducing body fat, in addition to supplementation with chromium, carb blockers, green tea extract, and conjugated linoleic acid.



So, all in all, there’s a lot of good research out there on safe options for female consumers (and those who love them) to empower themselves with safe, effective, science-backed supplements that will support, nurture, and cherish women on their health journeys.
 •  flag
0 comments
like  • 
Published on November 09, 2013 09:11 • 25 views

August 27, 2013

By James J. Gormley




On August 23rd, Newsday, a New York City newspaper ranked by Dr. Tim Groseclose as
one of the top 61 most “liberal” local newspapers in the U.S. ran an article amazingly
entitled, “FDA Official: 70% of Supplement Companies Violate Agency Rules.”




By “liberal” Groseclose did not mean the classical liberalism of a Thomas
Jefferson or an Abraham Lincoln but the “big government,” nanny-state modern liberalism ushered in by Woodrow
Wilson and expanded upon after 1921.




So perhaps we should not be completely surprised that any
liberal paper would slant its coverage to support the unaccountable
bureaucratic leviathan than the FDA is today ─ but, sadly, this does not serve the
paper’s roughly 378,000 daily readers, readers who are, in large part, also consumers
of dietary supplements ─ or at least they were
before the above-cited “the sky is falling” article.






Dietary Supplements: The Real Story

Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) for dietary supplements
are not new. The federal Current Good Manufacturing Practices for dietary
supplements (21 CFR Part 111) were issued six years ago, and the Natural
Products Association (NPA) rolled out its own voluntary GMP-certification
program in 1999.




Contrary to the horror show of allegedly widespread incompetence,
contamination and criminal negligence portrayed by the article, dietary
supplements (a class of food products) are even more regulated than is food. According
to whom, you ask?




How about the country’s most respected expert on food and
drug law, attorney Peter Barton Hutt, who served as Chief Counsel for the FDA
from 1971 to 1975, has taught food and drug law at Harvard for over 20 years, is
the co-author of Food and Drug Law: Cases
and Materials
(Foundation Press, 3rd edition 2007), and has
published more than 175 book chapters and articles on food and drug law and also
on health policy?




“The [Food Drug and Cosmetic Act], as amended by DSHEA and
the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act,
provides somewhat greater FDA regulatory authority over dietary supplements
than over conventional food,” noted Hutt in a white paper commissioned by the
Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) entitled FDA Statutory Authority to Regulate the Safety of Dietary Supplements
(2nd edition, 2011).




Safety: The Facts

According to the Newsday
article, approximately 6,300 adverse event reports were submitted for
dietary supplements from 2008 to 2012, a 4-year period. 




Not even considering
the fact that most of these reports were likely inaccurately linked to supplements
when other factors were the more probable causes, in the same period Pharmaceutical Commerce reports that
were approximately 3,260,000 adverse events reported for pharmaceutical drugs!




I don’t recall seeing this stark comparison in the newspaper
article.




The FDA official quoted in the story, Daniel Fabricant,
Ph.D., was formerly the science head for the NPA, and was a staunch defender of
natural products until he became its chief critic at the FDA.




On August 26th, John Spilateri Shaw, the CEO of Dr.
Fabricant’s alma mater, the NPA, noted in an open letter to Newsday that “industry members strongly
support providing additional resources for the FDA to keep illegal products
disguised as legitimate supplements off the market.”




The vast majority of “supplements are beneficial, and
millions of Americans depend on them each day,” Shaw added in his letter. “Your
readers should continue to use these products that safely and positively
influence their lives on a daily basis.”




Prescription and OTC Drugs: Safety? Not So Much

And what about the FDA takeover of three drug plants in 2011
following “shocking conditions” at the plants where one of the most popular
line of over-the-counter (OTC) pain relievers (rhymes with “i-lenol”) were manufactured.
"This inspection report is pretty close to being the worst I've seen,” according
to David Lebo, a professor of pharmaceutical manufacturing at Temple University
in Philadelphia, in an interview for CNNMoney.




The inspections reportedly uncovered safety and quality
violations in every system, control and process, from bacterial contamination,
to filthy manufacturing and storage conditions, to super-potent levels of pain
relievers in batches of the infant pain-relief formula.




Didn’t see much media coverage of this, did you? I only
noticed an obvious absence of the products from store shelves, and that was my
first tip-off.




Hutt added: “DSHEA provides greater FDA scrutiny of new
dietary ingredients than exists for new conventional food ingredients and adds
new safety enforcement authority for all dietary supplements that extends
beyond the FDA authority applicable to conventional food.”




Adulterated Supplements Are Illegal Drugs, Not Supplements

As to cases of deliberate
adulteration of dietary supplements, if the ingredients were anabolic steroids,
the product in question would then be an illegal drug ─ not a supplement ─ and
it is subject to action by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). I have been calling for the DEA to step up to the plate since 2010 .




The same with deliberate contamination with weight-loss,
sleep aid, or sexual health drugs, the rare number of cases of this type of
adulteration also renders this type of hybrid product an illegal drug; it is no longer a
dietary supplement product or issue.






As to even more rare cases of legitimate manufacturers who
unwittingly receive and use shoddy, contaminated or adulterated raw materials
due to falsified documentation and certifications, it is the manufacturer’s
responsibility to ensure the purity and safety of the ingredients it uses, and
there are multiple mechanisms in place to quarantine, test and verify
ingredients before they are included in finished dietary supplement products.




Peter Barton Hutt's Takeaway on Supplement (Hyper) Regulation

“DSHEA adds three additional procedural safeguards for
dietary supplement court actions to assure that FDA will act fairly and
equitably in its enforcement of safety requirements, but does not substantially
change the requirements applicable to court actions involving conventional food,”
noted Hutt.




According to him, “The Dietary Supplement and
Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act expands FDA’s regulatory authority
over dietary supplements by adding postmarket reporting and recordkeeping
requirements that are more stringent than those that apply to conventional
food.”




“Thus, in many ways, the current food safety provisions of the
[Food Drug and Cosmetic Act] provide FDA with greater substantive authority
over dietary supplements than they provide for conventional food, and the
modest procedural changes in the court enforcement requirements have had no
impact thus far and are unlikely to have a significant impact in the future,”
Hutt concluded.




To counter the article’s misleading timeline with one that
more accurately reflects the safety and consumer protections surrounding
dietary supplements, I offer, by way of conclusion,  this one adapted from Peter Hutt's white paper:






1994: Congress enacted the Dietary Supplement Health and Education
Act (DSHEA) to to continue the regulation of dietary supplements under the food
provisions of the FD&C Act but to replace the food additive provisions with
separate safety requirements for dietary ingredients.
2002: Congress enacted the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response to provide additional authority to
assure the safety of the food supply. In 2006, Congress enacted the Dietary
Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act to require
mandatory adverse event reporting systems for dietary supplements.
2007: Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Amendments
Act of 2007 (FDAAA) to prohibit the addition of drugs or biologics to food and
to authorize the creation of a “reportable food registry” to collect
information about articles of food that may pose serious health risks.
2011: Congress enacted the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act
(FSMA) to improve FDA’s capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to food safety
problems.




















 •  flag
0 comments
like  • 
Published on August 27, 2013 08:51 • 47 views

July 23, 2013

She's looking pret-ty spry for 75!



And by "she" I am referring to my editorial alma mater, Better Nutrition magazine, where I proudly served as editor in chief from 1995 to 2002, which is celebrating its 75th anniversary beginning with the August 2013 issue.






Better Nutrition has
always stayed true to its mission and has constantly worked very hard to never
let down its readers. It has a unique and trustworthy way of getting into
people’s hands, too, via consumers’ favorite health-food stores.









James Gormley's "Earth Watch" column in 1995


The
magazine has never been afraid to be out first on issues of great importance to
its readers, whether breaking an environmental health story about the dangers of
the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository (‘Physicists warn: nuclear
waste-site dangers exist,’ September 1995), or a commentary on nutritional
genocide (‘Iodine deficiency in China --- a crucial lesson for the U.S.’, August
1996), or an editorial in total support of St. John’s wort when most media
outlets were publishing unfounded hit pieces (‘St. John’s wort is safe,’ June
2000).





With
its editorials and its articles, Better
Nutrition
also helped re-popularize integrative medicine in the U.S. and
was on the vanguard of the successful fight (between 1997 and 1998) to force
the USDA to propose new USDA Organic standards that adhered to the right
principles. 



The magazine has also never shied away from publicly defending the
science and safety behind dietary supplements, whether in testimony I had an opportunity to deliver at the New
York City Council ephedra hearings in 2000 or when I had a chance to "take on" pharma industry
attorneys on FOX-TV’s ‘Good Day New York.’





Better Nutrition
was the first health and nutrition magazine to commit to a rigorous focus on
science in all of its reporting, an approach that was later emulated by other
magazines. In addition, the magazine has been part of a movement that changed
the nation’s mind-set from ‘5-a-day’ and mainstream ‘healthcare’ to optimal
nutrition and integrative health.





The
magazine has also never been afraid of getting personal, either, whether the
topics were fear, the inspiration of Patch Adams, happiness, hope or
thankfulness. In fact, readers have consistently shown their appreciation for Better Nutrition articles that inspired
them, encouraged them or gave them hope.







James Gormley's "Editor's Desk", 1999

In
January 2000, Better Nutrition
printed a letter from Ronee Groff, president of the Learning Disabilities
Association (LDA) of New Jersey, who wrote in about my December 1999
editorial, ‘Pass the squash, hold the fear: Meditations on racoons and a
fear-free holiday season.’ She pointed out in her letter how fear, anxiety,
worry and apprehension are a great part of the lives of people who are
struggling with learning disorders. She wrote: ‘We believe it [the commentary]
to be a wonderful piece, and we would love to communicate your words to those
we believe would enjoy, and receive some strength from, the message.’





In
July 2001, a reader from Mission Hills, Kansas, send in a card about the
February 2001 commentary, which was entitled, ‘Never stop dreaming.’ His card,
which I have kept on my own bulletin board for the last 12 years, reads: ‘I
want to congratulate you on a most wonderful editorial, ‘Never stop dreaming.’
It is kept at my desk as a reminder to stop and look up. Thank you for putting
a simple thought into words.’ ”



James Gormley's "Editor's Desk," 2001







Better Nutrition gave me the chance to learn quite a lot about nutrition: where we are,
where we should be, and what can help get us there nutritionally. I’ve had such
amazing opportunities, too, to learn and grow, including a press trip to China
in 2001, a life-changing experince that I will never forget.



I have met so many
caring and committed health-food retailers over the years, people who are truly
on the front lines of health freedom. 



It’s given me the chance to learn about
the regulations which support our right to high-quality, high-potency and
innovative dietary supplements and about the political and economic forces which
are taking aim at those rights, one of the reasons I decided to write Health at Gunpoint.



I am thankful to editor-in-chief of Better Nutrition today, Nicole Brechka, who gave a shout-out to me in the anniversary issue's editorial and to Vera Tweed in her history of the natural products industry this same issue.



Vera Tweed, Better NutritionAugust 2013








From the bottom of my heart, I wish Better Nutrition another 75 groundbreaking, conscious-raising years
of commitment and service to American consumers and the health-food stores
where they shop!









 •  flag
0 comments
like  • 
Published on July 23, 2013 21:56 • 32 views

July 21, 2013

By James J. Gormley




If New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg has his way, many more people
will be passing out in 100-plus-degree stairwells, since his latest initiative
promotes taking the stairs over riding elevators in New York City buildings.




Mind you, while taking the stairs would theoretically be much
better for cardiovascular health if air-conditioned or well-ventilated,
well-lit, and safe, the problem is that, in New York City at least, many of
them are not.




In fact, at the July 17th press conference announcing
these new initiative, New York City’s own health commissioner, Thomas Farley,
admitted: “In too many buildings, the stairs are hard to find, kept locked,
armed with alarms, or dark and windowless–making people afraid to use them.”




Aside from this, with the average high-rise height of 12-to-40
floors and the average apartment-building height of six stories---and
considering that these dark, un-ventilated passageways can reach temperatures
well over 100 degrees in the summer---it doesn’t help things when we consider
that they are also dangerous.




As Donnel Baird noted in a July edition of the New York Times, “If cops are on the
street, crime moves into the stairwells.”




Now while Bloomberg in not forcing people to take the stairs
yet, just give him time.




Look at his recent herculean efforts to impose a ban on
sugary drinks over 16 ounces (which doesn’t apply to some convenience stores or
all supermarkets, and people can just buy extra drinks anyway).




On the website, Above the Law (abovethelaw.com), back on
March 11, 2013, Elie Mystal wrote: “In case you haven’t been following along
with developments inside Mike Bloomberg’s […] nanny state, last year our
elected tyrant outlawed the sale of soda in sizes over 16 ounces at movie
theaters and other public places. The mayor felt that nobody needed more than
16 ounces of soda in one sitting, notwithstanding the fact that nobody asked
him what my mother thinks.”




Fortunately New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling overturned
the ban in March, stating  that “[The
city] is enjoined and permanently restrained from implementing or enforcing the
new regulations.” He added: “[The regulations are] fraught with arbitrary and
capricious consequences. The simple reading of the rule leads to the earlier acknowledged
uneven enforcement even within a particular city block, much less the city as a
whole. The loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the state purpose of the
rule.”




In other words, even this were not an outrageous violation
of freedom of choice and consumer rights, this law would still be a complete joke.




He specifically wrote that “to accept [Mayor Bloomberg’s]
interpretation of the authority granted to the Board by the New York City
Charter would leave its authority to define, create, mandate and enforce
limited only by its own imagination.”




The judge went on to note that the Portion Cap Rule, if
upheld, “would create an administrative Leviathan and violate the separation of
powers doctrine. The Rule would not only violate the separation of powers
doctrine, it would eviscerate it. Such evisceration has the potential to be
more troubling than sugar sweetened beverages.”




As Mystal correctly opines, “I’ve been living under Bloomberg
for so long I forgot that ‘so let it be written, so let it be done’ is not a
sufficient state interest for the curtailing of individual liberties.”




As Mystal adds, you cannot legislate good health or portion
control, and I agree with him and others that it is the height of arrogance to
presume to do so.




That is not stopping Bloomberg spending millions of our-tax-dollar-paid
NYC Corporation Counsel attorneys from pursuing this mad quest to the NY State
appeals court.




In a June 6th, 2013 Associated Press article published on the Huffington Post,
David B. Caruso wrote: “Justice David Friedman said the city appeared to be
asking for unprecedented authority to regulate all sorts of portion sizes,
including ‘the number of doughnuts a person could eat, the number of scoops of
ice cream’ and number of servings of fried chicken.”




Unlikely as it is for me to agree with the American Beverage
Association, I do in this case. According to Caruso’s article, Richard Bress, an
attorney for the association, “challenged the regulation acknowledged that too
much sugar can be unhealthy, but he told the court the regulation was ‘a
breathtaking example of agency overreach.’ "




Bress correctly told Caruso that the city’s proposal
appeared to be based more on politics than science. He pointed out, for
example, that no limits would be set for calorie-gargantuan milk shakes.




Meanwhile, the appeals court has not yet set a date for its
decision.






Gormley Take-Away: Whether it is the FDA saying people
shouldn’t have access to raw milk (because they don’t like it, apparently), or
California making almost every product or material in the state labeled with a
nonsensical Prop 65 warning that “this might cause cancer,” or whether it is
bureaucrats like Michael Bloomberg wagging his finger at us and telling us he
will decide what’s best for us and any semblance of separation of powers or
consumer rights be damned, common sense cannot be regulated and consumer choice---and
citizens’ rights---must be protected at all cost. What if early American
decided it didn’t like religious freedom and preferred living under the
domination of oppressive rule from afar? I probably wouldn’t have the freedom
to question intolerably bad policies and laws and regulations like these, and you wouldn’t
have the freedom to read this blog and any other articles or books questioning
them either. My suggestion: use your power at the voting booth to kick out
those would create or perpetuate Nanny State, Big Government regimes and elect those who will fight for liberty, justice and health-freedom.

 •  flag
0 comments
like  • 
Published on July 21, 2013 20:38 • 27 views

May 17, 2013

Guest post by Kathleen Barnes



As I prepare to put in my garden this year, I feel a little like some whacko-zombie apocalypse fanatic. I am on a fervent mission to find non-GMO seeds and plants.



It’s not as easy as you might think since Monsanto, the father of Frankenfoods and RoundUp (what a pair!) has not only managed to protect itself against lawsuits from consumers whose health is damaged by its GMO products, it has also managed to buy up most of the seed companies and insert genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into their products.



The day is not far off when it will be impossible to buy seeds that have not been modified.



Until very recently, Monsanto had targeted corn, canola, soy and cotton, but now its gobbled up the market for the seeds you and I plant in our backyard gardens. Monsanto now owns 90 to 95 of all seed companies in the U.S. While Monsanto says it has no intention of making all seeds GMO, I can only say: If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.



Let’s back up a few weeks to March 29 when President Obama signed into law, which has been dubbed the Monsanto Protection Act. The bill allows Monsanto to promote and plant genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds and precludes the courts for litigating any cases contending the products are unsafe.



This unprecedented legal protection also gives Monsanto a green light to continue producing and expanding its market for GMO crops and seeds.



The danger now is that according to US laws, Monsanto always wins, even if its experimental crops are proven to be hazardous to human health and even if they cause a runaway crop plague. Now, the American government has given away the judicial power to prohibit the planting and harvesting GMO crops in almost any case.



Zombie apocalypse, indeed!



GMO foods have been scientifically linked to obesity, diabetes, immune system alterations and impaired ability to digest protein. malfunction. The Bt-toxin introduced by Monsanto in the 1990s to kill insects has now been found in the blood of 67 percent of all women, 93 percent of all pregnant women and 80 percent of umbilical cord blood in their babies.



That’s just the tip of the iceberg. At least we, as consumers, have the right to know what we’re eating. Well-financed corporate interests helped defeat the GMO labeling amendment in California. Washington state has a labeling initiative pending. More than 60 countries now requires GMO labeling, but not the U.S. This is everyone’s fight, so I encourage you to get involved.



Back home, I’m seeking out heirloom seeds and plants for my garden. I found a good list at Garden of Eatin’that not only give us a very short list of seed companies that have signed a non-GMO statement for their products and a much longer list of those that are either owned by Monsanto or have at least some GMO seeds.



Today’s revolution is with our pocketbooks. Don’t buy products from companies that have bought into the Monsanto lie.



This is a complex issue that I’ll be visiting and re-visiting frequently in the future. Stay tuned. Your health and mine and the health of the planet for the next seven generations depends on it.



All content is written by Kathleen Barnes and may be used freely if unedited and attributed.
 •  flag
0 comments
like  • 
Published on May 17, 2013 18:14 • 27 views

April 28, 2013

 




OneNinth Media has just released the first in a series of video narrations of select snippets from my new book, Health at Gunpoint: The FDA's Silent War Against Health Freedom .
 •  flag
0 comments
like  • 
Published on April 28, 2013 14:46 • 27 views

March 12, 2013


My thanks to Publishers Weekly for announcing my appearance on tonight's The Brett Winterble Show on SiriusXM's America's Talk Channel 166 between 9:00 pm and 12:00 am EST.



And my thanks to host Brett Winterble for asking some great questions!!





 •  flag
0 comments
like  • 
Published on March 12, 2013 23:09 • 31 views

February 2, 2013

By James J. Gormley






What forces and interests direct the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and why is this out-of-control law enforcement agency working so hard to take dietary supplements out of our hands?



These are the central questions explored in  Health at Gunpoint: The FDA's Silent War Against Health Freedom , what I hope you will consider to be a groundbreaking book that brings into clear focus the silent war now being waged by the FDA against all of us: American consumers.



The FDA was established in 1906 to protect the U.S. public from misbranded and adulterated foods, drinks and drugs. While the original intent may have been honorable, over the years the execution of this mission has become tainted by lobbyists and money.






In  Health at Gunpoint , I present a history of both the natural foods movement and of this over-reaching Federal agency and examine how the agency has changed over the years. I then look at the FDA's most controversial decisions and the troubling reasons behind them.



Why did the FDA try to shut down the supplements industry by getting most supplements classified as drugs? Why did the FDA drag its feet on folic acid fortification while thousands of babies were born with devastating birth defects? Why did the FDA try to get life stages (such as pregnancy and aging) and normal discomforts (such as headaches) classified as diseases? Why are irradiated and genetically-altered food not labeled as such? Why does the FDA favor synthetic additives and dangerous drugs over natural ingredients and dietary supplements? Why did the FDA propose a guidance that would cripple the health food industry as we know it today?



Today, as in the past, the FDA is poised to make decisions that would have a major impact on the health of all Americans. Health at Gunpoint  not only sheds light on what is happening, but also explains what you can do about it.



Far from being a “conspiracy theory” book,  Health at Gunpoint  looks at how Americans made up their minds to develop a more food-secure, cleaner, and healthier world and how they had to fight vested interests and the FDA to create that world for themselves---and for us.



It informs, blows holes in myths, and hopefully will also inspire a brand new generation of health-freedom advocates to fight for their rights!



Note: If you are attending the 2013 Natural Products Expo West trade show in Anaheim, California, please stop by the Health at Gunpoint book signing at the Square One Publishers' Booth No. 804 on Saturday, March 9th, at 12:00 pm!






 •  flag
0 comments
like  • 
Published on February 02, 2013 12:48 • 24 views