Americans divided on engineered meals genetically While more than two-thirds of the food in U.S. Marketplaces contains at least some amount of a genetically built crop, researchers need to know if Us citizens consider GE meals a wellness risk or benefit achetez des pilules here . The result: People in america are split on the problem, but they have become more skeptical over the past three years slightly, according to a new study from Cornell University. Depending on whom you ask, the technology is either beneficial or has unwanted effects on environment and health, said James Shanahan, associate professor of communication at Cornell and lead researcher of the scholarly research. Generally, women and non-Caucasians perceived higher risk in using biotechnology in meals production than guys and Caucasians. And politically, Republicans showed more general support for GE foods than others, he said. John Besley, among Shanahan’s collaborators and a Cornell doctoral candidate in communication, presented the results at the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Technology today . The 3rd co-writer is Erik Nisbet, also a Cornell doctoral candidate in communication. The analysis included four annual nationwide surveys from 2003 to 2005 and three annual surveys of New Yorkers from 2003 to 2005 . The national survey measured support for GE food using a scale from 1 to 10, as the New York survey used an identical scale to measure the perceived health threats of GE meals. The outcomes of the state and national surveys were very consistent with each other, said Shanahan. And both showed hook but significant shift as time passes toward a little less support and more risk perception. Related StoriesUsing smart phone to identify diabetes marker in salivaJEDI T-cells provide exclusive technology to study, visualize immune responses and immunotherapiesStudy: Women not as likely than men to have good relief of chronic pain with long-term opioid useSpecifically, the mean response for support for biotechnology was 5.6 in the first year of the surveys, indicating that people were divided in helping evenly, opposing or being undecided; by 2005, the mean declined to 5 somewhat.2. Likewise, the mean response for risk perception risen to 6.1 in 2005 from 5.4 in the first year. The researchers also found that individuals who pay more attention to the news have a tendency to support GE food more than those that don’t. Overall, research demonstrates GE foods are safe and effective, while some people still harbor reservations about any of it, stated Shanahan. I suspect that the more people are uncovered to the news headlines, the more conscious they are of biotechnology and, therefore, more supportive of it. The New York data were collected by Cornell’s Survey Analysis Institute , which conducts survey analysis on par with additional academic research services. The national data were collected throughout a research methods training course in cooperation with SRI. Shanahan acts as the co-director of the general public issues education task, Genetically Engineered Organisms. The project comes with an extensive Site for consumers about GE foods and crops, including information on what foods are most frequently manufactured , which traits have already been engineered, regulations, and press opinions and insurance about GE foods.
Americans fed up with drug industry impact, FDA corruption, reveals remarkable Consumer Reports survey A lot more than four away of five Us citizens think drug companies have an excessive amount of influence over the meals and Drug Administration, and 84 % believe that advertisements for prescription drugs with safety concerns should be outlawed, reveals a striking new survey from Consumer Reports. The survey results, today released, are based on a telephone survey of 1 1,026 American adults conducted by the buyer Reports National Research Middle. They reveal the meals and Drug Administration to be alarmingly out of touch with the problems of the American people. Probably the most interesting outcomes include: • 96 % agreed the federal government should have the energy to require caution labels on drugs with known safety complications. As Consumer Reports explains, At this time, the Food and Medication Administration must negotiate protection warning labels with a drug maker. • 84 % agree that drug businesses have too much influence over the federal government officials who regulate them. More than two-thirds of these surveyed are concerned that drug companies in fact pay out the FDA to review and approve their medicines. It’s a situation that turns drug businesses into the clients of the FDA. • 92 % agree that pharmaceutical companies should disclose the full total results of most clinical trials, not only the ones with positive results that they would like to publicize. • 93 % think that the power should be had by the FDA to demand follow-up safety research from drug companies. Currently, no authority is had by the FDA to require follow-up security studies on drugs after they are introdued to the market. This is a significant oversight shortfall, given that many problems with drugs just appear after widespread make use of. FDA Conflicts of Curiosity. Click to view full cartoon.• 60 % agreed that doctors and scientists with a financial conflict of interest shouldn’t be allowed to provide on FDA advisory boards . Currently, doctors who earn thousands of dollars every year in consulting costs from drug companies aren’t only permitted to vote on the recommendations for FDA approval of their drugs, there is not even any FDA necessity to reveal such conflicts of curiosity. New guidelines proposed by the FDA would decrease this degree of corruption by permitting doctors to receive no more than $50,000 per year from companies influenced by their decisions. • 91 % said that they had noticed a medication advertisement on tv or in print , and 26 % said they asked their doctor for a brand-name medication after learning about it from an advertisement. This is the purpose of advertising, of training course: To increase sales of drugs, not really – – as is claimed by Big Pharma and the FDA – – to educate individuals about procedures. • 75 % agreed that the allowing of drug advertising has resulted in the over-prescribing of pharmaceuticals. Fifty-nine % said the national federal government should restrict pharmaceutical advertising, and 26 % stated they highly agree with such restrictions. Direct-to-consumer advertising is the breads and butter of Big Pharma, and it is the principal reason the industry offers exploded its influence and revenues since 1998. The invention and advertising of fictitious illnesses via television marketing has verified instrumental to the medication industry’s successful pressing of medically unjustified medications onto consumers. • The study further uncovered 54 % of consumers believe viewing medication advertisements allows them to consider charge of their healthcare. The survey did not, nevertheless, reveal whether these people were in fact suffering from deterimental cognitive side effects at the instant these were taking the study. Statistically, it seems reasonable to assume that about 50 percent of the adults acquiring the study were on drugs at the time these were answering the survey questions. When Pharmacists Tell the Truth. Click to view full cartoon.• More than half of those surveyed stated they are taking prescription medications currently, indicating that over fifty % of American adults are on drugs now. Forty % stated they have experienced a negative reaction from taking prescription drugs. Most side effects go unreported, and there is currently no enforced legal necessity that doctors or drug companies report known unwanted effects to the FDA. Based on the Journal of the American Medical Association, prescription drugs kill approximately 100, 000 Americans each year. None of those deaths are recorded seeing that loss of life by pharmaceuticals accurately. • As stated earlier, 84 % agree that advertisements should be outlawed for drugs with safety concerns. The United States is the only advanced nation in the world that allows drug companies to market directly to customers. It was legalized in 1998 by the FDA, pursuing political pressure and impact from the drug businesses who knew that being able to promote fictitious illnesses and push brand-name drugs would result in windfall profits. The manufacturers of Vioxx and Paxil experienced studies that indicated safety complications for years, but did not release those total leads to the public. – Consumer Reports The true risk of pharmaceuticalsInterestingly, the survey didn’t ask consumers the next question: How many Americans do you consider is appropriate for the drug businesses to kill each year? Because right today, that number is, conservatively, about 100,000 Americans. More realistic estimates put it at dual that number, or 200,000. I’ve frequently stated that pharmaceuticals eliminate more Americans every year than diet in the complete Vietnam War, and the number of Americans killed by works of terrorism are dwarfed by the quantity killed by prescription drugs that the FDA and drug companies unquestionably knew were eliminating people. It’s not these deaths were really accidental. They were fully documented but ignored in any case by an industry that’s now clearly a very real threat to the health and safety of the American people. That is no exaggeration: The number of people killed by FDA-approved pharmaceuticals since 9/11 is equivalent to dropping a nuclear bomb on a significant U.S. Town. International terrorists could not even hope to cause the number of casualties in the United States that have been attained by the drug businesses working in conspiracy with the FDA. If we don’t place limits on the impact and corruption of the drug companies by banning drug ads and demanding serious FDA reforms, the physical body count will only get worse. Consumers are waking up to this reality finally, and they are increasingly demanding get tough solutions that could need the FDA to protect the people instead of protecting Big Pharma earnings. As Costs Baughan, a senior policy analyst with Consumers Union , said, Customers expect Congress to consider their issues about drug safety significantly, and deliver legislation that may prevent potential Vioxx-type disasters. Failure to do something this year on the strongest feasible bill, when a lot more than 80 pecent of Americans agree that Congress should do whatever is necessary to ensure drug safety, would mean gross legislative malpractice. Most Americans agree with NaturalNewsWhat’s actually interesting about these results is that they display most Americans agree with NaturalNews on issues like drug marketing, ending conflicts of interest at the FDA, requiring all clinical trials to be published, and other equivalent topics protected in this study. Meanwhile, very few Americans buy into the FDA or the desires of organizations like the American Medical Association and medication companies themselves – – the majority of which like points just fine the way they are. Drug businesses, of course, would like to maintain the status quo and continue conducting business as usual. But because of grassroots consumer advocacy campaigns such as for example StopDrugAds . The astonishing story of Rezulin, a diabetes medication, is an excellent example. Repeatedly banned and confiscated herbs and nutritional supplements that compete with prescription medications. Ephedra, for example, was banned by the FDA predicated on a political agenda, bad science. Executed armed raids on choice medicine clinics, confiscating computer systems, threatening alternative health practitioners, and scaring away individuals. Ordered the destruction of recipe books advertising stevia, a natural sweetener that competes with sales of aspartame . Been captured red-handed accepting bribes. Voted to place deadly drugs right back available even after such drugs were recalled by their manufacturer. Openly opposed the banning of processed foods advertising to kids during World Health Firm meetings. Suppressed information regarding the harm due to dangerous drugs to be able to prevent the press and the public from learning the reality about them. Attemptedto silence its own drug safety scientists to avoid them from going public with the truth about dangerous medications. Censored scientific information about the benefits of natural foods like cherries by threatening cherry growers with legal actions if they did not remove scientific information regarding cherries from their websites. Pursued and shut down companies selling genuine tumor cures that provably are better than any prescription drug . Vigorously argued against making optimal health an objective of the Codex Alimentarius discussions, striking the expression from the ultimate report. Rigged its drug protection review panels with decision makers who have substantial financial ties to drug companies, even while refusing to reveal such blatant conflicts of interest. Planned, organized, and got component in armed SWAT-style raids on supplement shops, pet food stores, and a church even. Knowingly approved harmful food additives for widespread make use of in the food supply , when its own safety experts suggested denying approval even. Allowed the continuing legal usage of harmful, cancer-causing food additives in the nationwide food source such as for example sodium nitrite . Refused to ban a poisonous artificial extra fat from the meals supply for decades, despite the fact that the global world Health Organization urged member nations to outlaw the substance in 1978. Hydrogenated oils continue to harm infants, children, and adults today. It is clearly period to reform not the FDA merely, however the entire medical sector. Drug businesses are running amok, which new Consumer Reports survey reveals that consumers are finally fed up with it. Action Items:Support the Health Freedom Protection Act presented by Rep. Ron Paul. Learn more at Send a letter to safeguard your health freedom.