McDonald's Chicken McNuggets found to contain mysterious fibers, hair-like structures; Natural News Forensic Food Lab posts research photos, video
(NaturalNews) Today we announce the first investigation conducted at the
Natural News Forensic Food Laboratory
, the new science-based research branch of Natural News where we put foods under the microscope and find out what's really there.
Earlier today I purchased a 10-piece Chicken McNuggets from a McDonald's restaurant in Austin, Texas. Under carefully controlled conditions, I then examined the Chicken McNuggets under a high-powered digital microscope, expecting to see only processed chicken bits and a fried outer coating.
But what I found instead shocked even me. I've seen a lot of weird stuff in my decade of investigating foods and nutrition, but I never expected to find this...
Update: Natural News has now released a second round of "mysterious fiber" photos of Chicken McNuggets, in addition to the photos you see below.
Strange fibers found embedded inside Chicken McNuggets
As the following photos show, the Chicken McNuggets were found to contain strange fibers that some people might say even resemble so-called "Morgellon's."
We found dark black hair-like structures sticking out of the nugget mass, as well as light blue egg-shaped structures with attached tail-like hairs or fibers.
These are shown in extreme detail in the photos below, taken on August 15, 2013 at the Natural News Forensic Food Lab. The actual Chicken McNugget samples used in these photos have been frozen for storage of forensic evidence.
We also found odd red coloring splotches in several locations, as well as a spherical green object that resembles algae.
We are not claiming or implying that these objects in any way make McDonald's Chicken McNuggets unsafe to consume. We do, however, believe that this visual evidence may warrant an FDA investigation into the ingredient composition of Chicken McNuggets.
In particular, where are the hair-like structures coming from? This is especially important to answer, given that chickens do not have hair. Is there cross-species contamination in the processing of Chicken McNuggets? This question needs to be answered.
Share this story with everyone you know.
See my video at:
Or if YouTube censors the video, watch it at our free-speech video site, TV.naturalnews.com:
Microscopic photos reveal an alien-like landscape with weird shapes and fibers
Here are the some of the photos from the Natural News Forensic Food Lab:
Natural News Forensic Food Lab has now released a second round of "mysterious fiber" photos of Chicken McNuggets, in addition to the photos you see above.
About the author:Mike Adams (aka the "Health Ranger") is a best selling author (#1 best selling science book on Amazon.com) and a globally recognized scientific researcher in clean foods. He serves as the founding editor of [...]
HELP NEEDED: Azure Organic Farm in Oregon about to be forcibly mass poisoned with glyphosate by the county government
Take action: email or call Sherman County Court today and stop them from spraying our 2,000-acre Organic farm with herbicides… More details in this video and below…
(Natural News) Azure Farms is a working, Certified Organic farm located in Moro, Central Oregon, in Sherman County. It has been Certified Organic for about 18 years. The farm produces almost all the organic wheat, field peas, barley, Einkorn, and beef for Azure Standard.
Sherman County is changing the interpretation of its statutory code from controlling noxious weeds to eradicating noxious weeds. These weeds include Morning Glory, Canada Thistle, and Whitetop, all of which have been on the farm for many years, but that only toxic chemicals will eradicate.
Organic farming methods – at least as far as we know today – can only control noxious weeds—it is very difficult to eradicate them.
Sherman County may be issuing a Court Order on May 22, 2017, to quarantine Azure Farms and possibly to spray the whole farm with poisonous herbicides, contaminating them with Milestone, Escort and Roundup herbicides.
This will destroy all the efforts Azure Farms has made for years to produce the very cleanest and healthiest food humanly possible. About 2,000 organic acres would be impacted; that is about 2.8 times the size of the City of London, England, and 1.5 times the size of the city center of Philadelphia that could be sprayed with noxious, toxic, polluting herbicides.
The county would then put a lien on the farm to pay for the expense of the labor and chemicals used.
Take Action Now
If you are concerned about where your food comes from, enjoy Organic and non-GMO food grown in the United States, and support organic farmers, contact Sherman County Court before May 22, 2017 (and preferably before May 17 when the next court discussion will be held).
Via email at [email protected]
Call Lauren at 541-565-3416.
Raise your voice and speak up for you and your families and communities.
This proposed action is completely unreasonable and would destroy an organic farm and pollute a massive area. If enough voices that benefit from organic produce speak up, the county will understand that there are people that care about their food NOT containing toxic chemicals. And if the supporters of healthy food can have a louder voice than the supporters of toxic chemicals, every politician will listen. PLEASE take action today and share this message. Overwhelm the Sherman County representatives with your voice.
Take Action Today
Email or call Sherman County via email at [email protected]
or call Lauren at 541-565-3416. [...]
Kathleen M. Zelman, MPH, RD, LD, has been the director of nutrition for WebMD, one of the most visited health sites on the web, for 13 years.1 Listed in her extensive biography are ties to United Healthcare insurance company, for which she serves as a nutrition expert, as well as contributing editor to Food & Nutrition Magazine.
She's also received a high honor from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics — the 2016 Lenna Frances Cooper Memorial Lecture Award — among many other accomplishments. But what is not mentioned, however, is that Zelman also participates in Monsanto's Leaders Engaged in Advancing Dialogue (LEAD) Initiative.
The participants — 15 "communication leaders in the food and nutrition space" — receive funding from Monsanto and "communicate with consumers who have questions about food and agriculture, especially how food is grown." They also "engage with the food and nutrition community through various outreach initiatives."2
WebMD's Little-Known Ties to Monsanto
The fact that WebMD's nutrition director is being paid by Monsanto (the company won't say how much) to talk about the benefits of Monsanto products is concerning, especially since the general belief is that WebMD is a trustworthy source of "independent and objective" health information.
It's become quite clear, however, that WebMD is a shill, using its influence to promote corporate-backed health strategies and products.
In 2016, for instance, WebMD featured Monsanto-sponsored ads saying, "It's time for a bigger discussion about food," with links to Monsanto's biased take on soil, water and honeybee issues, with no other contributors to the discussion in sight.
In other words, Monsanto pays WebMD to display advertisements and advertorials on its behalf, furthering their agenda.
Advertorials are essential ads that appear to be actual journalism, which can easily be misunderstood as "real," science-backed content. If WebMD is carrying Monsanto's message, even if it's clear that Monsanto crafted it, then many will simply assume that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) must be safe.
Beyond assumptions, WebMD is also peppered with pro-GMO articles,3 so it's no secret where their loyalty lies.
Monsanto Pays Registered Dieticians to Spread Their Agenda
Influencing federal agencies and utilizing registered dieticians to spread their agenda is Monsanto's modus operandi. Zelman is but one registered dietician who belongs to Monsanto's LEAD Initiative. Mary Lee Chin, MS, RDN is another.
In March 2017, media outlet Mic released snippets of Chin's emails, which were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, and shared examples of her social media posts, which do not disclose that she's a paid consultant for Monsanto.4
In a 2014 email to Jon Entine, founder of the Genetic Literacy Project, a GMO- and pesticide-friendly blog that sponsors a biotech conference known as the Biotech Literacy Project, Chin said she hoped the LEAD [...]
Keep in mind that you need to avoid all gmo’s because “roundup”, “agent orange” is grown right into the genes of the plant
The fruits and vegetables that may cause leukemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, brain, bone, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular and liver cancers.
You may find yourself wondering if you should be buying organic fruits and vegetables instead of conventional ones. The first thing is to understand the differences between organic and conventional produce – the amount of pesticides used.
Did you know that nearly 1.7 million people are diagnosed with cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. A cancer epidemic is at all time high, and evidence is growing ever stronger that pesticide exposure is a key contributor to this. In February 2009, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry published a study that found that children who live in homes where their parents use pesticides are twice as likely to develop brain cancer versus those that live in residences in which no pesticides are used.
Chronic health consequences may occur years after even minimal exposure to pesticides we ingest through our food and water. A July 2007 study conducted by researchers at the Public Health Institute, the California Department of Health Services, and the UC Berkeley School of Public Health found a sixfold increase in risk factor for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) for children of women who were exposed to organochlorine pesticides.
Studies have found that pesticides are extremely toxic to children. There is now vital scientific evidence that the human brain is not fully formed until the age of 12, which means that exposure to pesticides can crucially impact the development of the central nervous system.
WHY CHOOSE ORGANIC
Several studies have found that organic foods contain higher levels of antioxidants and certain micronutrients, such as vitamin C, zinc and iron. One study discovered that organically grown berries contained 58% more antioxidants and up to 52% higher amounts of vitamin C . Organic fruits and vegetables tend to produce more antioxidants that serve as their own protective compounds, rather relying on chemical pesticide sprays to protect themselves.
Non-organic fruits and vegetables pesticide residue:
Strawberries – 45 pesticide residues
Apples – 47 pesticide residues
Nectarines – 33 pesticide residues
Peaches – 62 pesticide residues
Celery – 64 pesticide residues
Grapes – 56 pesticide residues
Cherries – 42 pesticide residues
Spinach – 54 pesticide residues
Tomatoes – 35 pesticide residues
Sweet bell peppers – 53 pesticide residues
Cherry tomatoes – 69 pesticide residues
Cucumbers – 86 pesticide residues
Snap peas – 78 pesticide residues
Blueberries – 52 pesticide residues
Potatoes – 35 pesticide residues
Hot peppers – 75 pesticide residues
Lettuce – 52 pesticide residues
Kale/Collard greens – 55 pesticide residues/45 pesticide residues
Blueberries imported – not dif [...]
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide and many other commercially available weed killers. Due to the widespread adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops, glyphosate has become the most commonly used weed killer in the conventional farming industry. GM glyphosate-resistant crops are now grown on more than 175 million acres in the United States and more than 440 million acres worldwide. Each year, more than 300 million pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides are sprayed on American food crops, lawns, and gardens.
Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen.” As more health risks associated with glyphosate exposure start to emerge, the European Union remains uncertain whether it will renew its authorization of glyphosate in commercial products in Europe.
Furthermore, recent safety testing has shown that glyphosate residues can cause harm to human health, even at ultra-low levels. While the evidence is clear, the U.S. authorities, unfortunately, keep allowing this dangerous toxin to end up in our food chain at worrying levels. Safety testing of glyphosate residues in Roundup-sprayed crops is often ignored and unreliable.
While Monsanto has continuously claimed that Roundup is harmless to our health, multiple studies are painting a different picture. Regular exposure to glyphosate has been linked to chronic conditions such as autism, Crohn’s disease, allergies, depression, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and infertility. (RELATED: Stay informed about more glyphosate news at Glyphosate.news.)
Glyphosate found in many processed foods
Anresco Laboratories in San Francisco, an FDA-registered food safety lab, recently conducted their own research to see whether glyphosate can be found in commonly consumed processed foods. And their tests revealed the worst. Previous research has shown that glyphosate or glyphosate residues of only 0.05 parts per billion (ppb) can cause damage to at least 4,000 genes, while 10 ppb may cause serious health effects, such as kidney and liver damage. Anresco’s results, however, indicated that some of the tested foods had up to 1,000 times that amount.
The testing and analysis were requested by Food Democracy Now! and The Detox Project, who bundled the results in a 29-page report called “Glyphosate: UNSAFE ON ANY PLATE.” According to the report, U.S. regulators currently allow a very high level of daily glyphosate residues in our food. The authors hope their report can serve as a strong wake-up call for all Americans to reconsider their consumption of some of their favorite processed foods.
Furthermore, Food Democracy Now! has called for a federal investigation into the damaging effects of glyphosate and the relationships between the industry and the regulators that allow these toxins to end up in our food chain.
Below you’ll find an overview of common brand names and the amount of glyphosate that was found in some of th [...]
GMO labeling law is ‘fake’, would not ‘truly’ expose engineered food – experts to RT
A new controversial GMO labeling law signed by President Barack Obama would strip US consumers of their right to learn about genetically engineered products as nothing would be labeled, experts told RT.
Passed by Congress, the law officially titled S. 764, has been largely labeled as the “Dark Act,” short for “Denying Americans the Right to Know.” It received a go-ahead from the Obama administration on July 29.
READ MORE: Judge upholds Vermont GMO labeling law while case continues
When implemented, it will require all food packages containing genetically modified organisms to carry a text label, a symbol or an electronic code readable by smartphone.
The controversial law nullified a Vermont law that kicked in July 1, forcing food manufacturers to label products containing genetically engineered ingredients.
“Vermont gave us an opportunity to learn about genetic engineering. They required ‘produced with genetic engineering’ to be placed on all food that is genetically engineered. Congress is taking that away and they are replacing it with basically nothing,” political director for the Organic Consumers Association, Alexis Baden-Mayer, told RT.
She says that up to 99.8 percent of all the GMOs grown in the world today are pesticide plants that “are engineered to expose us to more insecticides and herbicides by making the plants tolerant to herbicides that would normally kill them if they were not engineered, or turning the plants themselves into insecticides that have to be regulated by the environmental protection agency.”
Supporters of the mandatory GMO labeling have said instead that the new law would help US consumers “make educated choices” when picking their food. However, opponents of the “Dark Act” say it falls far from the truth.
“[This law] is fake. It means nothing. It is not going to truly label GMOs. There is going to be exemptions from that standard,” independent food and agriculture consultant Elizabeth Kucinich told RT. “This is something that is being really a fabricated piece of legislation to try and quell the food movements that push to really have the right to know what we are eating.”
Baden-Mayer agrees that not all GMO products will be marked, because of a narrow definition of genetically engineered food.
“This definition that they have in the law for ‘bioengineered’ is drawn so narrowly that virtually nothing that is currently being labeled under Vermont’s law will be labeled,” she said.
Critics have also accused the law of trying to intentionally hide the information, by making it hard to access it. About a third of Americans – mostly elderly people and minorities – still don’t use smartphones needed to scan QR codes with information, according to Statista.
“The reason why we are seeing such a burgeoning growth in the organic sector is because people realize that [GMO] labeling [...]
(NaturalNews) While UK citizens were revolting en masse against bureaucratic rule in Europe, another cabal of prostituted lawmakers were busy plotting against American food consumers. According to this announcement from the United States Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, committee leaders have reached a "bipartisan agriculture biotechnology compromise solution."
What exactly is this so-called "compromise?"
The complete banning of all GMO labeling state laws across America.
And that's just for starters. After that, this new "compromise" decrees that no foods shall be GMO labeled for two years while the USDA ponders the best way to deceive consumers and hide Monsanto's GMOs for another few years. The suggested law also gives the USDA the right to decree that any foods with less than 50% bioengineered content could be considered non-GMO, by the way.
As a bonus surrender to Monsanto, the law would also not require animal products derived from GMO-fed animals to be considered bioengineered at all. So cattle feedlots can pump cows full of GMOs and glyphosate for years, then sell the resulting beef as "all natural."
Finally, after two years, the USDA would then roll out a nationwide rule that would only require food companies to place a scannable QR code on their labels. Consumers would then have to carry mobile phones with them to scan all the codes in order to determine what's really GMO. As stated in the proposed law:
...the form of a food disclosure under this section be a text, symbol, or electronic or digital link...
In other words, "GMO labeling" doesn't actually have to consist of words or any meaningful symbol. So it's all a farce. This is how the food industry can claim they've agreed to label GMOs without actually labeling GMOs. It's all more subterfuge and collusion between Monsanto and lawmakers... is anyone surprised?
See this QR code image? It is unreadable by humans, and that's one purpose. The U.S. Senate is literally trying to roll out a nationwide GMO "labeling" law that would result in labels which cannot be read by human beings. How's that for being a functioning legislative prostitute for Monsanto?
U.S. Senate going all out to keep you in the dark about GMO foods
In other words, the so-called "compromise" proclaimed by the Senate committee is actually a law that bans clear GMO labeling nationwide and only requires foods to be labeled with digital codes that can only be read by machine (which don't even eat food).
You can't make this stuff up. Somehow, all the other mandatory food labeling requires words or numbers, but when it comes to GMOs, the Senate's attempts to hide and bury this information are so insidious that they've gone with machine language code. Can you imagine if they stripped away ingredients lists and nutrition facts and replaced those labeling sections with machine language code, too? It's basically one giant "F-U" to food consumers from the United States Senate.
Russia’s State Duma adopted Friday the third and final reading of a government bill that introduces a total ban on the cultivation and breeding in Russia of genetically modified (GM) plants and animals, except for scientific research purposes.
The Sate Duma has also given the Russian Government the right to prevent the import of products containing GMOs in to Russia, if it is revealed that a specific GMO has a negative impact on human health and/or the environment
Russia’s Agriculture Minister, Alexander Tkachev, stated Friday; ”The Ministry of Agriculture is strongly against GMOs, Russian products will remain clean.”
The initial first reading of the government bill was held in 2015 and this was followed by the second reading in the Sate Duma earlier this week. The additions in the final bill included the introduction of fines that will be placed on people or companies that violate the ban: a fine of 10,000-50,000 ($150-$750) rubles for individuals and 100,000-500,000 rubles for legal entities ($1,500-$7,500).7
The Russian Government has stood strong in the face of increasing pressure from U.S. biotech companies and they have also managed to see through the Russian pro-GMO forces’ misleading claims and pseudoscience.
In December 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin told the Russian Parliament that Russia should become the world’s largest supplier of organic foods.
Also in 2015, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich stated that it is not necessary to use genetic modification to feed the world, at the 12th International ‘Science and Technology in Society (STS) forum’ in Kyoto, Japan.
This strength shown by the Russian government was also shown early in 2016 when they dealt a huge blow to U.S. farmers, by banning all imports of U.S. soybeans and corn due to microbial and GMO contamination. [...]
In a previous report, I indicated “Why Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speeches Are Relevant”, but not what they contained. The present report indicates what they contained.
One speech in particular will be cited and quoted from as an example here, to show the type of thing that all of her corporate speeches contained, which she doesn’t want the general public to know about.
This is the day’s keynote speech, which she gave on Wednesday, 25 June 2014, to the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a lobbying organization in DC, at their annual convention, which in 2014 was held in San Diego. The announcement for attendees said: “Wednesday’s Keynote session is sponsored by Genentech, and is open to Convention registrants with Convention Access and Convention Access & Partnering badges only. Seating is limited.” Somehow, a reporter from a local newspaper, the Times of San Diego, managed to get in. Also, somehow, an attendee happened to phone-video the 50-minute interview that the BIO’s CEO did of Clinton, which took place during the hour-and-a-half period, 12-1:30, which was allotted to Clinton.
The Times of San Diego headlined that day, “Hillary Clinton Cheers Biotechers, Backing GMOs and Federal Help”, and gave an excellent summary of her statements, including of the interview. Here are highlights:
It was red meat for the biotech base. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a 65-minute appearance at the BIO International Convention on Wednesday, voiced support for genetically modified organisms and possible federal subsidies. …
“Maybe there’s a way of getting a representative group of actors at the table” to discuss how the federal government could help biotechs with “insurance against risk,” she said.
Without such subsidies, she said, “this is going to be an increasing challenge.” …
She said the debate about GMOs might be turned toward the biotech side if the benefits were better explained, noting that the “Frankensteinish” depictions could be fought with more positive spin.
“I stand in favor of using seeds and products that have a proven track record,” she said [at 29:00 in the video next posted here], citing drought-resistant seeds she backed as secretary of state. “There’s a big gap between the facts and what the perceptions are.” [that too at 29:00] …
Minutes earlier, Gov. Jerry Brown made a rousing 3-minute pitch for companies to see California as biotech-friendly.
“You’ve come to the right place.” …
Brown had some competition for biotech boosterism in the form of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the longtime Clinton ally who pitched his own state as best for biotech. …
[Clinton was] Given a standing ovation at the start and end of her appearance.
In other words: As President, she would aim to sign into law a program to provide subsidies from U.S. taxpayers to Monsanto and other biotech firms, to assist their PR and lobbying organi [...]
Some ‘Questions And Answers’
The decision on whether to renew EU approval for the herbicide glyphosate is to go to an appeals panel on 23 June after a last ditch attempt to get a temporary re-authorisation failed on 6 June (for some background information, see this). It is unclear if the meeting will produce the majority vote needed to pass the authorisation. The current licence for glyphosate in the EU expires on 30 June.
In an ideal world, glyphosate would be taken off the commercial market due to its obvious adverse effects on human health and the environment. In such a world, the EU would at the same time be facilitating policies that would ensure a major shift towards more sustainable agricultural practices.
In the world that we exist in, however, commercial and geopolitical interests trump any notion of what is in the public interest, what is good for the environment and strategies that could result in localised food production systems to ensure food security, thriving communities, nutritious food, replenished soils and climate-friendly practices.
These interests have succeeded in rolling out a system of economic plunder and bad food and poor health across the planet. If the ordinary person were to engage in biopracy, ecocide, the devastation of livelihoods and to knowingly poison the environment and food, as these corporations have, they would face years of incarceration.
Instead, we find these corporations securing privileged access to or control over institutions and co-opting politicians, policy makers, scientists and regulators, who sit on powerful bodies masquerading as ‘public servants’ or mouth platitudes about serving humanity, while effectively serving the interests of their real constituents: the global agritech/agribusiness cartel.
Conflicts of interest: the EFSA and the Royal Society
In February 2016, campaigner Rosemary Mason wrote to Dr Bernhard Url, Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), asking him some serious questions about the independence of EFSA committees. The letter comprised the fully-referenced document ‘Glyphosate causes cancer and birth defects. Humans are being poisoned by thousands of untested and unmeasured chemicals’.
Bernard Url failed to reply.
On 6 June, Mason wrote to the president of the influential UK’s Royal Society, Sir Venki Ramakrishnan, about conflicts of interest within the Society.
Venki Ramakrishnan has as yet not replied.
In late May, the Royal Society released the report ‘GM Plants: Questions and Answers’. The report reads less like an objective appraisal and more like a pro-GMO whitewash on GM crops.
The report conveniently fails to address the ongoing debate around glyphosate and, where it is briefly mentioned, it is in glowing terms. Given the prevalence of herbicide-tolerant GMO crops and its devastating health and ecological impacts, this is a serious omission. This should come as little surpr [...]
Are Gender-Bending Chemicals Causing Gender-Bending Confusion?
Holy Hormones Journal: This is a tough post to write… and at the same time it is probably one of the most important posts I have ever written. I have had articles saved for weeks on 08.12.15 gender-confusion-and-moral-rebellionthis… but could not seem to muster the writing needed to make you all aware that we are living in dangerous times. And then I had an email from my friend and colleague Christina England alerting me to the fact that estradiol (a bioidentical hormone extracted from yam or soy) has been discovered in polio vaccines being given to children in Kenya. Christina asked me to provide links to articles regarding the dangers of estradiol – and asked my thoughts on the matter – especially in regards to males receiving these vaccines and the risk to their fertility. And that my friends prompted me to write what has to be written.
I have been aware of the dangers of xenoestrogens in our environment for quite some time. Many of us have been sounding the alarm on this – and we have begun to see the ravaging effects of what has been called “gender-bending chemicals.” Bear with me gentle reader as I take you down the road to gender confusion.
The web site, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families reports:
In the U.S. today, there is increasing concern that environmental contaminants may be harming the reproductive health and fertility of women and men. Reproductive and fertility problems appear to be on the rise.
At least 12% of women reported difficulty in conceiving and maintaining pregnancy in 2002, an increase of 40% from 1982. From 1982 to 1995, the prevalence of infertility almost doubled in younger women, ages 18–25. A recent update concludes that the trend may have leveled off, although there is disagreement on this.
Fibroids and other fertility-related diseases, like endometriosis and polycystic ovarian syndrome, are diagnosed more frequently now, which may be the result of a true increase, better detection, or both.
According to a large study of men from the Boston area, testosterone levels in adult men are declining. This decline is not explained by an increase in age or other health or lifestyle factors such as obesity or smoking.
Testicular cancer increased by 60% between 1973 and 2003 in the U.S.
Sperm counts have declined in men in some areas of the U.S., Europe, and Australia.
In U.S. girls, puberty is beginning earlier than in the past. A weight-of-the-evidence evaluation of human and animal studies suggests that endocrine-disrupting chemicals, particularly estrogen mimics and anti-androgens, as well as increased body fat and certain social circumstances, can advance the onset of puberty.
Reproductive tract abnormalities are increasing in certain populations. In one analysis of two U.S. surveillance systems, cryptorchidism (undescended testicle(s)) increased 200% between 1970 and 1993. In some [...]