FDA not only downplayed the risk of contamination, but ignored staff members who proposed higher levels of contamination protection.

Ever since the largest offshore oil spill in history spewed into the Gulf of Mexico last year, independent public health experts have questioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's efforts to effectively protect Americans from consuming contaminated seafood.

Now a recent study by two of the most tenacious non-government scientists reveals that FDA Gulf seafood "safe levels" allowed 100 to 10,000 times more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in seafood than what is safe. The overarching issue the report addresses is the failure of the FDA's risk assessment to protect those most vulnerable to the effects of these chemicals, such as young children, pregnant women and high-consumption seafood eaters.

In an effort to pinpoint how the FDA decided to set its acceptable levels for PAH contaminants in Gulf seafood, researchers at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which performed the study -- published in the leading peer-reviewed environmental health journal Environmental Health Perspectives -- also scoured documents wrested from the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act.

Eating less may keep the mind young, according to Italian scientists who reported Monday they have discovered the molecular process by which a strict diet may save the brain from the ravages of age.

The research, published in the US journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is based on a study of mice that were fed a diet of about 70 percent of the food they normally consumed.

Scientists found that the calorie-restricted diet triggered a protein molecule, CREB1, that activates a host of genes linked to longevity and good brain function.

"Our hope is to find a way to activate CREB1, for example through new drugs, so to keep the brain young without the need of a strict diet," said lead author Giovambattista Pani, researcher at the Institute of General Pathology, Faculty of Medicine at the Catholic University of Sacred Heart in Rome.

2011 was an amazing year for the health freedom movement, with monumental victories against Monsanto, Merck and money-hungry pharmaceutical corporations as a whole.

As the year comes to a close, it is important to look back on some of the most important stories that helped to propel the natural health movement into the mainstream spotlight.

More than just listing the articles, you will receive an inside look into each story - from the true importance and depth of the story to the reciprocation and possible spin by the mainstream media.

In letters to Colorado public health officials, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) opposes a rule requiring workers in health care facilities to have an annual influenza vaccination or lose their jobs. Workers who had a rare religious or medical exemption would be required to wear a mask in patient care areas from November through March.

The religious exemption is too narrowly drawn, AAPS writes, and should be a philosophical exemption, as accepted in many states, to "to avoid inquisitions into matters of faith." The mask requirement "seems to be nothing more than a punitive retaliation against those who decline the vaccine" and should be dropped, the AAPS letter states, as both immunized and non-immunized individuals can transmit influenza or other illnesses.

The New Mexico study cited in support of the policy shows a tiny effect: an adjusted odds ratio of only 0.97 for confirmed influenza "outbreaks" (at least one case) in residents of long-term care facilities where 60% of direct-care workers were immunized compared with facilities with a 51% immunization rate. This means that in facilities where more workers were immunized, residents were still 97% as likely to get influenza. "Many other factors could account for the small difference," states AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D.

There's a world outside your window
And it's a world of dreaded fear
Where the only water flowing is a bitter sting of tears
And the Christmas bells that ring there are the clanging chimes of doom

"Do They Know It's Christmas Time" by Band Aid

After a recent Christmas carol service, I got chatting to a local farmer who dropped into conversation something that not only alarmed me in regards to the corruption in the commercial food industry, but also just how vulnerable we are to the profiteering of the 'food' producing multinationals:

When you buy a roasting beef joint from one of the major chains in the UK, were you aware that the beefy part is sourced locally but the fat around it - essential for cooking the roast - is flown all the way over from Brazil, cut up and slapped around it before sale?

The reason for this, I'm told by the farmer who has full knowledge of these absurd practices, is that the large supermarket chains squeeze local farmers by insisting that the fat content of the procured meat must be below a certain level. In doing so they greatly reduce the price at which meat is purchased for the supermarket shelves. It would stand to reason that the pressure would also encourage the use of hormones/feeds/varieties that produce lower fat carcasses. If I understood correctly, the consumer ends up paying a similar price for the beef that's been transported locally and the fat that's been shipped halfway around the world.

Now, I don't know, how it can be cheaper for the supermarkets to import the fat from Brazil, perhaps it is a by-product from some food-processing monolith. This isn't uncommon, as we know, in the globalized planet in which we now live. For their Christmas dinner, undiscerning consumers will enjoy turkey from Brazil and dog salmon from China. However, what really concerns me is just how little we are told about where our food comes from and what's in it. We are unwittingly part of the world's largest experiment and in this example we don't know whether the Brazilian fat comes from cows fed on GMO's or not. The likes of Monsanto are using their vast wealth and lobbying power to obfuscate important information that rids us of the freedom to make choices that could save our lives.

It seems that people in Britain have been increasingly becoming more health-conscious. Not only that, but the need to avoid sickness also seems to be more of a necessity than it has been in past years. In fact, vitamin sales more than tripled in Britain in just the past 2 years, but are people really targeting the reduction of illness and disease in the most effective way?

Choosing the Wrong Supplements

It isn't surprising to see such an increase in supplement sales. Although statistics for many diseases are still steadily rising, it seems awareness surrounding the need for a healthy lifestyle is also gaining considerable momentum. One supermarket chain called Sainsbury's is experiencing 200 percent increased sales for their vitamin C compared to two years ago while multivitamin sales have also doubled over the same time period. In addition, sales of antibacterial hand gel are up 145 percent compared to 2010, showing that people are becoming more worried about contracting and illness as well as spreading germs.

Unfortunately, many people contributing to these sales may not know that what they are really buying into is toxic health. It is extremely difficult to find a quality health supplements in any drugstore or supermarket, and Sainsbury's is no exception. Not only are most if not all of the vitamins in synthetic form, but you can also expect to find a long list of unhealthy and toxic ingredients. Here are just some of the ingredients to look out for, which can actually be found in Sainsbury's Vitamin C Tablets:

• Maltodextrin
• Stearic Acid
• Magnesium Stearate
• Modified Maize Starch

These ingredients are controversial to say the least, but some of them such as magnesium stearate have been shown to cause kidney stones and liver abnormalities. There is no reason to put your health at risk with supplements containing toxic ingredients when purchasing truly healthy supplements can be just as simple.

Women who live in low-income neighborhoods are more likely than their wealthier counterparts to get misinformation about emergency contraception from their local pharmacies, a new study finds.

The results suggest that young women in areas where teen pregnancy rates are highest may struggle most in trying to get the morning-after pill, which can prevent ovulation - and thus pregnancy - after unprotected sex.

The pill, sold under the brand names ella, Next Choice and Plan B One-Step, made headlines this month when the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, overruled a Food and Drug Administration recommendation that teens younger than 17 be able to get emergency contraception over the counter. Currently, the pill is available at drug stores to women 17 and older, but younger teenagers must get a prescription. Emergency contraception pills become less effective as time passes after unprotected sex, so time is of the essence for women hoping to prevent a pregnancy.

For that reason, quick access to the pill is key. But Tracey Wilkinson, a general pediatric fellow at Boston Medical Center and the Boston University School of Medicine, had been hearing "weird things" about teens' attempts to get the pill - "things like prescriptions not showing up if they'd been sent electronically, or if they were an adolescent, they would have difficulty getting their prescriptions filled," Wilkinson told LiveScience.

The rumors spurred Wilkinson to look into how accessible the morning-after pill really is for teenagers. From September to December 2010, she and her colleagues had female research assistants call every pharmacy in Nashville, Tenn.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Cleveland, Ohio; Austin, Texas; and Portland, Ore.

Known for her poetry, letters, love affair and marriage to Robert Browning, Elizabeth Barrett Browning also left a legacy of unanswered questions about her lifelong chronic illness. Now, a Penn State anthropologist, with the aid of her daughter, may have unraveled the mystery.

Born in 1806, Barrett Browning suffered throughout her life from incapacitating weakness, heart palpitations, intense response to heat and cold, intense response to illnesses as mild as a cold, and general exhaustion in bouts that lasted from days to months or years. Her doctors were unable to diagnose or treat her illness, which apparently first appeared around age 13.

"Conjectures by modern biographers about Barrett Browning's condition include anorexia nervosa, neurasthenia; tuberculosis; pertussis, an encephalomyelitis; non-paralytic poliomyelitis; paralytic scoliosis, or the lifetime effects of injuries to her spine from falling from her horse in early adolescence; opium addiction; and mental illness, including anxiety and agoraphobia," Anne Buchanan, research associate in anthropology, reports in the current issue of Perspectives in Biology and Medicine.

Some even attribute her illness to defense against the inferior status and treatment of Victorian women, or simply to malingering.

Are you consuming Monsanto's genetically engineered growth hormone known as rBGH?

The synthetic hormone is created using molecules and DNA sequences that are a result of molecular cloning, which has been linked to breast and gastrointestinal cancer.

Unfortunately, it is estimated that around 1/3 of cows in the United States are injected with this synthetic hormone, which means that you have most likely been highly exposed to rBGH if you live in the U.S. or have eaten U.S. dairy products.

rBGH is actually a synthetic version of natural bovine somatotropin (BST), a hormone produced in cows' pituitary glands.

Impact Seen As Roughly Comparable to Radiation-Related Deaths After Chernobyl; Infants Are Hardest Hit, With Continuing Research Showing Even Higher Possible Death Count.

An estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the United States are linked to the radioactive fallout from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, according to a major new article in the December 2011 edition of the International Journal of Health Services. This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima.

Authors Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman note that their estimate of 14,000 excess U.S. deaths in the 14 weeks after the Fukushima meltdowns is comparable to the 16,500 excess deaths in the 17 weeks after the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. The rise in reported deaths after Fukushima was largest among U.S. infants under age one. The 2010-2011 increase for infant deaths in the spring was 1.8 percent, compared to a decrease of 8.37 percent in the preceding 14 weeks.The IJHS article will be published Tuesday and will be available online as of 11 a.m. EST here.