Top 13 Ways to Tame Eye Allergies

15/08/2017 RxList - Slideshows 0

Eye allergies, or allergic conjunctivitis, cause itchy eyes and other allergic symptoms. Avoiding allergens and using medicated eye drops can help. Learn about eye allergy triggers like mold and pollen, and eye allergy relief like shots and eye drops.

‘Clients belittle you’: foreign social care workers on life in the UK

15/08/2017 Katherine Purvis 0

Social care workers who have moved to the UK explain how working here differs from their native countries

When Canadian Lindsey Brooks started working in the UK’s social care sector three years ago, one of the most startling differences she noticed was the lack of respect often shown to care workers. “Many clients are really hard on care workers; they belittle you and treat you quite poorly,” says Brooks, a client relationship manager for HomeTouch. “I think many clients view care workers as a personal housekeeper and that’s just not what they’re there for.”

Care workers are better respected in Canada, Brooks believes, because they’re better paid and because of the country’s reputation of having one of the world’s best healthcare systems. “If you’re lucky enough to have a caregiver that you get on with, people consider that a privilege.”

Related: ‘I work full-time yet can’t afford to meet my basic needs’: care workers speak out

Continue reading…

‘Clients belittle you’: foreign social care workers on life in the UK

15/08/2017 Katherine Purvis 0

Social care workers who have moved to the UK explain how working here differs from their native countries

When Canadian Lindsey Brooks started working in the UK’s social care sector three years ago, one of the most startling differences she noticed was the lack of respect often shown to care workers. “Many clients are really hard on care workers; they belittle you and treat you quite poorly,” says Brooks, a client relationship manager for HomeTouch. “I think many clients view care workers as a personal housekeeper and that’s just not what they’re there for.”

Care workers are better respected in Canada, Brooks believes, because they’re better paid and because of the country’s reputation of having one of the world’s best healthcare systems. “If you’re lucky enough to have a caregiver that you get on with, people consider that a privilege.”

Related: ‘I work full-time yet can’t afford to meet my basic needs’: care workers speak out

Continue reading…

The Eclipse is Coming! Here’s What You Need to Know

15/08/2017 HealthFeed 0

As the excitement builds and the entire country counts down to the total eclipse of the sun on August 21, ophthalmologists, planetariums, astronomical societies, and the media are all doing their best to get the word out about why and how you need to p…

Monsanto Shill Fired by Forbes

15/08/2017 Dr. Mercola 0

By Dr. Mercola

A common corporate tactic, well-honed by the tobacco industry, is to use “third-party experts” to bring the industry’s message to the public under the cloak of independent opinion or expertise. The idea is that academic types are far more credible than industry employees when it comes to defending the industry’s position.

Over the years, I’ve written about many of these so-called “independent experts” that turned out to be anything but. Among them is Henry Miller, who was thoroughly outed as a Monsanto shill during the 2012 Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign in California.

Henry Miller Outed as Monsanto Puppet — Again

The industry-funded “No on Prop 37” placed Miller front and center of its campaign, breaking all sorts of rules in the process. As the Los Angeles Times1 reported at the time, a No on 37 advertisement had to be pulled off the air because Miller was fraudulently identified as being part of the Stanford University faculty. Behind him in the shot was Stanford’s recognizable vaulted campus walkway.

Alas, not only is Miller not a Stanford professor (he’s a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank that just happens to be housed on the Stanford campus), Stanford also has a policy to not take positions on candidates or ballot measures, and does not allow political filming on campus.

Aside from promoting genetically engineered (GE) foods (he was actually the founding director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Biotechnology), Miller also has a long history2 of defending toxic chemicals such as neonicotinoid pesticides, DDT and cigarettes.

He’s even penned articles suggesting radioactive fallout might be beneficial for health, while claiming “Organic agriculture is to the environment what cigarette smoking is to human health” — apparently momentarily forgetting he’s defended the safety of cigarette smoking.3

Miller is also a friend of the infamous industry front group American Council for Science and Health (ACSH), which has defended everything from fracking and pesticides to bisphenol-A and GE foods. Now, Miller has made less than flattering headlines yet again — this time for being fired by Forbes Magazine for submitting articles ghostwritten by Monsanto.

Unethical Ghostwriting More Common Than You Might Suspect

Monsanto isn’t feeding the world as they claim, but they sure are spoon-feeding scientists, academics and journalists. This shameful practice is far more common than anyone would like to think. Fortunately, Forbes had the integrity to do something about it this time.

That doesn’t always happen. The evidence4 against Miller emerged during the court-ordered discovery process of a class action lawsuit against Monsanto by people who claim they developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as a result of glyphosate exposure (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, used by farmers and home gardeners alike).

The documents, more than 700 pages in all, were posted online by the law firm Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman,5 which states the documents “allow people to see what is happening ‘behind the curtain’ of secrecy that normally shrouds ongoing litigation … These documents tell an alarming story of ghostwriting, scientific manipulation, collusion with the Environmental Protection Agency, and previously undisclosed information about how the human body absorbs glyphosate.” As reported by The New York Times:6

“Documents show that Henry I. Miller … asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015 … A similar issue appeared in academic research.

An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, ‘I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.’ He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: ‘We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.’”

Miller Fired for Submitting Ghostwritten Material 

While there’s controversy about the legality of the release of these internal emails by plaintiff’s attorneys to the public,7 Forbes’ response was swift. Faced with evidence they’d published material under Miller’s name that was in fact ghostwritten by Monsanto, Forbes not only fired Miller but also removed all of his work from their site.

The article in question, published in 2015, attacked the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, which had classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Email correspondence reveals Monsanto asked Miller if he’d be willing to write an article on the findings, to which he replied “I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft.”

The subsequent article, which was near-identical to Monsanto’s draft, was published in Millers name, with no mention of Monsanto involvement.8 Forbes’ site expressly states that “opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own,” which in this case clearly was not true. Mia Carbonell, a Forbes spokeswoman, told The New York Times:  

“All contributors to sign a contract requiring them to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and only publish content that is their own original writing. When it came to our attention that Mr. Miller violated these terms, we removed his blog from and ended our relationship with him.”

Correspondence Reveals Internal Knowledge of Roundup Dangers

The released email correspondence also reveals Monsanto executives are clearly aware there are safety concerns with Roundup as a formulation, and its main ingredient, glyphosate, and have been for well over 15 years. As noted in the featured article:9

“‘In a 2002 email, a Monsanto executive said, ‘What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies — Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.’

In a 2003 email, a different Monsanto executive tells others, ‘You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.’ She adds, however, that ‘we can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.’”

Proof of Industry Involvement in Retraction of Damning Research 

The documents also show Monsanto pressured A. Wallace Hayes, then-editor of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, to retract a damning animal study by professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, which showed Roundup and GE corn caused cancer and early death. Hayes, it turns out, had entered into a contract with Monsanto shortly before the coordinated retraction campaign began.

While Hayes denies Monsanto had anything to do with his controversial and widely criticized decision to retract Séralini’s study, the email correspondence suggests otherwise.10 As noted by GM Watch:11  

“Back in 2012, GMWatch founder Jonathan Matthews exposed the industry links of the supposedly independent scientists who lobbied the journal editor to retract the Séralini paper. Now we have first-hand proof of Monsanto’s direct involvement …  [Monsanto scientist David] Saltmiras … writes of how ‘Throughout the late 2012 Séralini rat cancer publication and media campaign, I leveraged my relationship [with] the Editor i[n] Chief of the publishing journal …

Another Monsanto employee, Eric Sachs, writes … about his efforts to galvanize scientists in the letter-writing campaign … Sachs writes: ‘I talked to Bruce Chassy and he will send his letter to Wally Hayes directly and notify other scientists that have sent letters to do the same. He understands the urgency …

I remain adamant that Monsanto must not be put in the position of providing the critical analysis that leads the editors to retract the paper’ … Sachs is keen to ensure that Monsanto is not publicly seen as attempting to get the paper retracted, even though that is precisely what it is doing. Sachs writes to Monsanto scientist William Heydens: ‘

There is a difference between defending science and participating in a formal process to retract a publication that challenges the safety of our products. We should not provide ammunition for Séralini, GM critics and the media to charge that Monsanto used its might to get this paper retracted. The information that we provided … makes a strong case that the paper should not have passed peer review.”

Forbes Has Many Shills

Ironically, as recently as November 2016, Miller delivered a critical salvo against a New York Times article in which Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Danny Hakim argued that GE agriculture is a failure because it has neither reduced pesticide usage nor led to increases in yields. Miller was one of the “independent experts” contacted for rebuttal by Forbes contributor Kavin Senapathy. She writes:12

“… Miller tells me via email that ‘[t]he senior management at the Times takes valid criticism seriously, especially when it contains terms like ‘bias,’ ‘dishonesty’, and ‘inaccuracy.’ He expects there will be an avalanche of complaints to the Times public editor at”

 You can contact Forbes to let them know how you feel about the biased stable of writes they hire by emailing them at You can find similar bias in articles at Forbes that include Senapathy;13 Steven Salzberg (self-described as “fighting pseudo-science);14Bruce Chassy and Jon Entine.15,16

If Forbes really wants to clean up its act, its editors would take a moment to investigate any contributing author relying solely on information from these and other known industry shills and/or industry front groups. It’s a pretty close-knit group of individuals, so the worst actors are not hard to identify based on their associations.

Besides the Genetic Literacy Project and the ACSH, both with ties to Monsanto,17 there are many other industry front groups and websites specializing in astroturfing while pretending to be independent and science oriented. That includes but is certainly not limited to the following.18

Science 2.0

Science Codex

GMO Answers

Center for Consumer Freedom

Independent Women’s Forum

Center for Inquiry

Once you start to investigate these front groups, you’ll find the same names appearing again and again, co-writing articles, interviewing each other and referring to each other’s work back and forth.

Aside from those already mentioned, well-known contributors speaking for the industry include Kevin Folta, professor and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at University of Florida — who, incidentally, was also contacted by Senapathy for comment on her Forbes piece against Hakim’s “hack job on GMOs,” and Keith Kloor.19

Why Lack of Trust in Science Is Warranted

It’s bad enough that most published research findings turn out to be false due to poor design or bias, organizations such as these willfully promote flawed or flat-out manufactured science to support industry goals, while attacking research that conflicts with their aims — no matter how well done that research is. Complaints have been raised that many are “losing faith” in science and just don’t trust it anymore. Considering the evidence, this makes perfect sense, as so much of it IS false.

As noted in a 2005 paper20 titled, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” published in PLOS Medicine, John Ioannidis notes: “Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”

While science in general fails to hit the truth squarely on the head even under the best of circumstances, the chances of an industry-funded study being wrong is FAR greater than one done by independent researchers, who tend to be less vested in the outcome. There’s really no disputing this.

Not only has funding bias been repeatedly demonstrated in studies looking at funding and study outcomes, if it weren’t true, the industry would not go to such great lengths to secretly hire academics, researchers and journalists to pretend as if they’re speaking as independent experts. Nor would any of these front groups exist — groups pretending to be grassroots efforts by concerned citizens or organizations by science-loving academics, and so on. They wouldn’t be necessary if industry-backed science were trustworthy.

Illegitimate Science and Fake Journalism Are a Real Threat

The fact of the matter is, these front groups and paid lackeys are not dealing in legitimate science or journalism. To hide that fact, they try to intimidate and shame people as “science-deniers.” Regardless of how this class action lawsuit against Monsanto pans out, it has done a great public service, revealing just how far companies like Monsanto will go to deceive, and the amount of human suffering they’re willing to cause in the name of profitability with nary a thought of remorse.

With the evidence before us, why should anyone trust them, or anyone involved in their scheme? As the old adage goes, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Some of the released emails reveal Monsanto has not properly tested its chemical formulations, and that they are in fact terrified of doing so, for fear of what might be found.

In document No. 28, Monsanto regulatory affairs manager Stephen Adams states, “With regards to the carcinogenicity of our formulations we don’t have such testing on them directly…”

This email was dated December 10, 2010. In an email dating all the way back to 2001, Mark Martens — a former Monsanto employee with a Ph.D. in pharmaceutical sciences — addresses the issue of formulation testing, saying, “I don’t know for sure how suppliers would react — but if somebody came to me and said they wanted to test Roundup I know how I would react — with serious concern. We have to really think about doing formulations even if they are not on the market …”21

According to the plaintiff attorneys, “This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it contains explicit concerns by Monsanto regarding the biological plausibility of the formulated product to cause cancer.”

Emails written by a Monsanto toxicologist also show the company did not want to conduct any kind of safety studies on glyphosate, surfactant ingredients or the formulations. Ignorance is bliss, they say, but when a company chooses to remain ignorant of its product’s dangers in order to absolve itself from responsibility for its effects, all the public gets are woes.

Factory-Farmed Meats Quickly Replaced With Grass Fed

15/08/2017 Dr. Mercola 0

By Dr. Mercola

Industrial agriculture, characterized by vast swatches of genetically engineered corn and soybean fields and livestock raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), is swiftly destroying the planet and worsening human health in the process. In exchange for cheap meat, we’re paying a hefty price, one that may be infinite in the damage it’s causing via pollution.

It’s clear the industry is unsustainable, and now it’s been blamed for causing a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico that’s incompatible with life. Before the destruction continues, it’s essential that transitions to regenerative agriculture occur. The good news is that such changes appear to be rapidly occurring in areas of the U.S.

Tyson Foods Blamed for Causing Largest Dead Zone on Record

In a report released by environmental group Mighty Earth, massive manure and fertilizer pollution churned out by meat giant Tyson Foods is blamed for causing the largest dead zone on record in the Gulf of Mexico.1 According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the area of low oxygen, which can kill marine life, is nearly 9,000 square miles, which is about the size of New Jersey.2

The dead zone is primarily the result of nutrient pollution from agriculture in the Mississippi River watershed. The excess nutrients promote the growth of algae that decomposes, using up oxygen needed to support life. Mighty Earth singled out Tyson and another meat giant, Smithfield, as top contributors to the dead zone for several key reasons:3

  • Tyson produces 1 out of every 5 pounds of meat in the U.S. and is the only company with processing facilities in each of the states contributing the highest levels of pollution to the Gulf of Mexico
  • Tyson and Smithfield have the highest concentration of meat facilities in the areas with the highest levels of nitrate contamination
  • Tyson’s feed suppliers are responsible for the majority of grassland prairie clearance in the U.S., which “dramatically magnifies the impacts of fertilizer pollution”

According to Mighty Earth, “To identify the companies responsible, the investigation maps the supply chains of the top meat and feed companies, and overlays it with data showing elevated nitrate concentrations in waterways that are experiencing high levels of fertilizer pollution.” They continued:4

“The report also mapped where these supply chains are driving destruction of natural grasslands, including native prairies, putting new regions at risk for fertilizer pollution. America’s largest meat company, Tyson Foods, stood out for its expansive footprint in all the regions suffering the worst pollution impacts from industrial meat and feed production.

Tyson produces one out of every five pounds of meat produced in the United States, and owns brands like Jimmy Dean, Hillshire Farm, Ball Park and Sara Lee, in addition to selling to fast food retailers like McDonalds. The company is consistently ranked among the top polluters in America.”

Rotational Grazing Is Making an Appearance in the Midwest

The report urges Tyson and other meat giants to encourage their grain suppliers to use cover crops and reduce fertilizer usage. This is a start, but as demand grows for meat raised on pasture via small, local farms, it may prompt more widespread changes.

A two-crop planting cycle of corn and soybeans, along with CAFOs that raise one type of meat, has become the dominant model in the Midwest, thanks to the federal farm policy that subsidizes these crops and regulations that make local meat processing nearly impossible. These favors to corn, soy & meat industries come with devastating consequences to human health and the environment.

However, slowly some Midwest farmers are exploring other options, including rotational grazing, which allows them to bring in premium prices for their meat by catering to customers who are looking for food raised via natural, environmentally friendly and humane methods. NPR’s The Salt recently reported on Wendy Johnson, an Iowa farmer who runs Joia Food Farm, on land rented from her family (which runs a conventional corn and soybean farm):5

“Johnson’s approach relies on grazing different types of animals on the same land in a carefully controlled pattern, which ideally will enhance the land they roam. When used with several different animals, the technique is sometimes called multi-species grazing.

Johnson plans to rotate sheep through a series of small paddocks, followed by the meat chickens. The animals will eat what they please and fertilize with their waste. Laying hens and turkeys roam freely about her farm and yard. And she plans for pigs to eventually graze on organic crop fields where their natural rooting behavior should help improve soil health.”

Bison Are Also Making a Comeback, Helping to Restore Grasslands

Bison ranches are also flourishing in some areas, such as in Montana at Turner Enterprises Inc., where vice president of ranch operations Mark Kossler says, “The grass business is the business we’re in.”6 The National Bison Association, which recently launched a “Bison Hump Day” campaign to encourage people to eat bison meat on Wednesdays, hopes to increase the bison population in North America to 1 million in the next decade.

As with grass fed beef, free-ranging bison also have the potential to increase natural grasslands and reduce pollution in the U.S. Dave Cater, executive director of the National Bison Association, told Delicious Living:7

“We think that more bison on the land is a good thing, not only for people that love to eat bison and people who love to raise bison, but for the land itself. This is the animal that helped shape the ecosystem of North America. We think that bringing more bison back helps restore acres of native grasslands and range lands.”

Raising bison on natural grasslands, helping to restore the environment, could be called the opposite of raising cattle in CAFOs. And it’s catching on with some big-name food giants interested in cashing in on the growing bison market, including General Mills. The company recently acquired EPIC Provisions, a “mindful meat company” whose top seller is a Bison Bacon Cranberry Bar made with grass fed bison.8

EPIC Provisions is changing the game in producing products made only with meat from suppliers following regenerative agricultural methods. What’s more, they’re helping potential producers who want to change their practices to meet their higher standards. General Mills clearly sees “green” with EPIC, in more ways than one.

So far, the company’s founders have promised not to sell out their greener ways now that they’ve been acquired by the food giant. “In our case, it’s not about a large company changing EPIC. It’s about EPIC changing General Mills,” they told New Hope Network.9

Grass Fed Producers Meet With Amazon

If there were ever a sign that grass fed meat and dairy are catching on, it would be the “secret” meeting that took place between Amazon and a select group of grass fed farmers. Speculated to have taken place at White Oak Pastures in Bluffton, Georgia, a grass fed farm that has reached somewhat of celebrity status among those in the know, it’s unclear exactly what was discussed at the meeting — but several theories have been put out there. As The New Food Economy suggested:10

“Amazon’s move toward grass-fed is straight out of the standard tech industry playbook: identify an industry struggling with bottlenecked demand, and use transformative tech to get people more of what they want … This is a huge opportunity for Amazon, which could use its logistical sophistication and enormous financial resources to build from scratch the supply chain that grass-based ranchers need.

… But skeptics have a right to be concerned, too. Are the values of regenerative farming compatible with a steamrolling, publically traded tech titan? And what about the cultural piece: Can rural, mission-driven ranchers really partner up with Silicon Valley’s most unctuous wheelers and dealers?”

Whether or not Amazon’s move to get into the grass fed market will turn out to be positive remains to be seen, but it’s clear the growing industry is in need of a helping hand. While still thought of as a niche market, the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture in New York released a report showing that grass fed systems could be expanded — enough so to compete with the polluting and inhumane concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) currently supplying the majority of U.S. beef.11

Two major hurdles stand in their way, the first being CAFOs, which have access to more efficient supply chains and slaughterhouses. For instance, farmers must use USDA-approved slaughterhouses, and laws place special restrictions on grass fed slaughtering.

If a grass fed rancher doesn’t have access to a slaughterhouse, he cannot stay in business. This shrewd strategy effectively maintains the CAFO status quo because grass fed farmers are often forced to ship their animals hundreds of miles for “processing” — a move that’s both costly and stressful.

Imports of grass fed beef, which make up 75 percent to 80 percent of U.S. grass fed beef sales by value, are another hurdle. Australia and Brazil can produce grass fed beef at a lower cost, as their climate allows for year-round grazing. U.S. consumers may not know the grass fed beef they purchase isn’t from the U.S., however, because as long as a piece of imported beef passes through a USDA-inspected plant, it can be labeled as a “Product of the USA.”

Again, it’s unclear whether a joint venture between Amazon and grass fed farmers would increase transparency or, on the flip side, secrecy. “If Amazon’s grass fed supply chain ends up being as off-limits as its data centers,” The New Food Economy noted, “that won’t be an encouraging sign for the future of agriculture.”12

Grasslands and Cover Crops Are Crucial to Saving Our Soil and Water

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) convenes sessions around the U.S. in an effort to improve soil health and teach farmers how to use less fertilizer and produce the same, and in some cases better, yields. In an interview with The Christian Science Monitor, Phil Robertson of Michigan State University explained three “game-changing” practices that could help make soils “net mitigating,” meaning they capture more greenhouse gases than they emit.13

  1. No-till cultivation, in which crops are grown without plowing
  2. Advanced nitrogen fertilizer management, or applying only minimal amounts of fertilizer
  3. Cover crops

The latter strategy alone, cover crops, can virtually eliminate the need for irrigation when done right. The cover crops also act as insulation, so the soil doesn’t get as hot or cold as it would if bare. This allows microbes to thrive longer. Also, the soil biology heats up the soil, which can extend your overall growing season in colder areas, and it helps prevent soil erosion and reduces the need for agricultural chemicals.

Even in the Midwest, where most fields are still covered in conventionally grown corn and soy, change is brewing. Mother Jones spoke with David Brandt, who farms 1,200 acres in Ohio and has transitioned to no-till and cover crops, with impressive results, including drastically reduced usage of fertilizers and herbicides.

“[T]here are three things that set Brandt’s practices apart from those of his neighbors — and of most American farmers. The first is his dedication to off-season cover crops, which are used on just 1 percent of US farmland each year.

The second involves his hostility to tilling — he sold his tillage equipment in 1971. That has become somewhat more common with the rise of corn and soy varieties genetically engineered for herbicide resistance, which has allowed farmers to use chemicals instead of the plow to control weeds.

But most … use ‘rotational tillage’ — they till in some years but not others, thus losing any long-term soil-building benefit. Finally, and most simply, Brandt adds wheat to the ubiquitous corn-soy rotation favored by his peers throughout the Corn Belt. Bringing in a third crop disrupts weed and pest patterns, and a 2012 Iowa State University study found that by doing so, farmers can dramatically cut down on herbicide and other agrichemical use.”14

While it would seem that farmers would be scrambling to adopt a more diversified cropping approach, along with beneficial strategies like cover crops and no-till, many barriers stand in their way. There can be significant costs in the short term to stray from their usual rotation, for instance, and planting cover crops requires more management and work hours.

Further, many farmers lack the practical know-how to convert to more complex crop rotations, as well access to research showing that doing so would be beneficial. Federal farm policies also support the old system, as Mother Jones noted, “[F]ederal crop payouts and subsidized crop insurance buffer their losses, giving them little short-term incentive to change.”15

Where You Get Your Food Matters

Sourcing your foods from a local farmer is one of your best bets to ensure you’re getting something wholesome. And, you’ll be supporting the small farms — not the mega-farming corporations — in your area. Ideally, support farmers who are using diverse cropping methods, such as planting of cover crops, raising animals on pasture and other methods of regenerative agriculture.

The American Grassfed Association (AGA) has also introduced much-needed grass fed standards and certification for American-grown grass fed dairy,16 which will allow for greater transparency and conformity.17 The standard is intended to ensure the humane treatment of animals and meet consumer expectations about grass fed dairy, while being feasible for small farmers to achieve.

An AGA logo on a product lets you know the animals were fed a lifetime diet of 100 percent forage, were raised on pasture (not in confinement) and were not treated with hormones or antibiotics.18 I strongly encourage you to seek out AGA certified dairy products as they become available. In the Midwest, the Kalona SuperNatural brand is the first dairy brand to become AGA-certified.

Another option is to join a community supported agriculture (CSA) program. Doing so can make a big difference in how well a small family farm can survive and thrive. As a CSA member, you buy a “share” of the vegetables the farm produces, and each week during growing season (usually May through October) you receive a weekly delivery of fresh food.

Joining a CSA is a powerful investment not only in your own health, but in that of your local community and economy as well. If you live in the U.S., the following organizations can help you locate CSAs and other farm-fresh foods in your area: provides lists of certified organic farmers known to produce safe, wholesome raw dairy products as well as grass fed beef and other organic produce. Here you can also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass fed products.

Weston A. Price Foundation

The Weston A. Price Foundation has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.

Grassfed Exchange

The Grassfed Exchange has a listing of producers selling organic and grass-fed meats across the U.S.

Local Harvest

This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats and many other goodies.

Farmers Markets

A national listing of farmers markets.

Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals

The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.

Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA)

CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.


The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs and markets near you.

The Cornucopia Institute

The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO “organic” production from authentic organic practices.

If you’re still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out and They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws. California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at