Tag Archives: Food Safety

You Will Be What They Want You To Eat

Posted on by

Control the Food and you Control the People

by Meryl Nass

July 16, 2024

Dear Friends,

There is an apochryphal phrase that, despite its disputed source, probably everyone can agree with: “Control the Food and You Control the People.”

Our grandparents and great grandparents produced much of their own food in their gardens or on their farms.  Food choices in stores were limited, with little frozen food available and fewer fresh and canned foods for sale.

In 1850, 64% of American workers worked on farms.1 In 1900 there were still 6 million US farms, with an average size of 150 acres.2 By 1920, 30% of US workers still did farm work.3 But after World War 2, the US government adopted policies to reduce the number of farmers and expand the size of farms–for more efficiency, it was said.4 5 6 Today, only 1% of Americans work on farms7 and the number of farms has dropped by 2/3.

Most US farmland belongs to farms that are over 2,000 acres in size, or more than 3 square miles.  But along with efficiency came worsening food quality.  The so-called “Green Revolution” allowed farmers to apply chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides while ignoring the overall fertility, quality and texture of their soils.  Depleted soils subsequently produced less nutritious foods, while accumulating low levels of neurotoxins and carcinogens.

Decades of consolidation of food production, processing and distribution has steadily increased the size and power of a small group of global agricultural corporations. Most of those companies are in turn members of the World Economic Forum (WEF) or its Food Action Alliance, and they are wielding unelected power to influence food production and distribution in the name of climate change, sustainability,8 health, and equity.9

For example, the WEF had this to say about food systems in 2022:

“In the face of volatile global shocks from conflicts such as the war in Ukraine, the COVID-19 pandemic, and extreme weather events, it has become more urgent than ever to transition food systems to a net-zero, nature-positive infrastructure that nourishes and feeds everyone.10

Net zero means “removing an equal amount of CO2 from the atmosphere as we release into it.”11 This has never been accomplished by any food system, and the implications could drastically reduce the food supply–yet it is said to be the reason we must change the way we produce food.

The WEF and other international entities have recently increased the intensity of this concerted push, most visibly in policies targeting the reduction or elimination of livestock and related farming activities.

Climate change as a justification to attack food production

Advocates of climate change urgency have steadily honed their concerns about agriculture. The WEF boldly proclaims:

With the food system responsible for a third of overall global CO2 emissions, attention on ‘climate-beneficial’ foods has been slowly but steadily increasing.

The US EPA disagrees with the WEF that agriculture plays such a large role in global CO2 emissions.12 Nor are the many CO2-lowering effects of regenerative agriculture (like sinking CO2 into the soil from the air) mentioned as offsets.

Organic and regenerative agriculture, in which topsoil is rebuilt through composting, “green manure” plantings that enrich the soil, and good forestry practices, can sequester more CO2 in the soil and trees than is lost through other agricultural processes. These could potentially achieve ‘net zero’– and increase the production of more nutritious foods and healthier soils, but are not being touted as solutions. One must ask then, is the goal really “net-zero” or is there another goal?

Numerous international agencies and NGOs have converged to accuse cows and farming of harming the climate. They offer technological rescues, to be provided by corporate WEF members. These include the United Nations Environment Program and AIM for Climate.

Like carbon dioxide, methane is a greenhouse gas that is said to contribute to global warming. Over 150 nations have signed the “Global Methane Pledge” to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 203013–and some are reducing dairy and beef cows because the gas produced in their intestines contains methane.  (Humans also expel methane.14)  Methane is released naturally from cracks in the earth, as well as from fracking and oil drilling–which were recently shown to release 5x as much methane as earlier estimates suggested.15 But it is the gas produced by cows that is the current target for methane reduction.

Issues that have not been satisfactorily addressed include:

  • whether our methods for measuring temperature in comparison to past decades provide accurate comparative results,
  • how the doomsday targets for temperature and CO2 were arrived at,
  • how members of the IPCC, an unaccountable body responsible for climate targets and projections were selected and retained,
  • since scientists worried about a coming ice age during the 1970s, doesn’t that suggest considerable changes in climate (both up and down) over relatively short periods of time,
  • what is the evidence that increased heat and increased CO2 are dangerous when both contribute to increased growth of plants,
  • while it was claimed that sea level rises would be catastrophic, what we are seeing in fact is evidence of small changes in sea level in both directions.

Health

WHO’s Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated that “a transformation of the world’s food systems is needed urgently, based on a One Health approach that protects and promotes the health of humans, animals and the planet.” We all want to protect animals and environment, as well as our own health, but it seems the obvious way to do that is to address the evils of factory farming and excess chemical additives used for crops and livestock, rather than a major transformation of what we eat.  Consuming large amounts of insect proteins, or lab-grown ‘meat,’ for example, will have unpredictable effects on health. Do we really want to perform these experiments on billions of people at once?

“One Health” is also being used as the justification to vaccinate fur farm workers against bird flu in Finland,16 even though there have been no human cases in Finland, the disease does not spread person-to-person, and everyone in the US who has developed bird flu in the past 2 years has had an extremely mild illness: conjunctivitis +/- symptoms of a cold. None were hospitalized or died. The excuse is that vaccinating people will allow continued farming of mink and foxes, which were culled last year due to alleged bird flu infections. Here is how Finland’s health department draws from “One Health” to wordsmith the need to give experimental vaccines, never before tested in humans, to farmworkers in expectation that an outbreak of bird flu might occur:

“This issue must be evaluated within a framework which considers the intricate interplay between the environment, animals, and humans. Recognising this interconnectedness and the vast array of environmental impacts of human activity is crucial, and our protective measures should consider the overarching goal of maintaining and enhancing planetary health.”17

Equity

Equity is repeatedly embraced as the justification to change the way food is allocated. The roster of corporate players at AIM for Climate proclaims “Diversity, gender equity, and inclusion are critical to the success of the mission.”   But real equity is allowing people to choose the food they eat, without interference, rather than restricting populations from accessing the foods they prefer and imposing new foods on them.

Animal Rights

The World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) joined the plan to balance environmental demands against human needs for food through adherence to the loose “One Health” approach. At the same time, WOAH admits, “More than 75% of the billion people who live on less than $2 per day depend on subsistence farming and raising livestock to survive.”18

The world’s largest food producers, processors, and retail sellers are joined with governments and NGOs through the WHO, UN, WEF, and a plethora of interconnected organizations. Yet all these supposedly charitable organizations have become focused on reducing or eliminating livestock, despite the fact that the poorest peoples as well as the wealthiest rely on livestock for meat, dairy and for enriching the soil. The multinational organizations and food conglomerates want humans to convert to a state-specified diet comprised instead of synthetic meats, insects, and other novel food products manufactured by these companies, which have not previously been known for their concerns about our health.

Many question whether a group of global industrialists and politicians have either the expertise or desire to “improve the state of the world,” but there is no question that the proposed intention is to consolidate and control food production and distribution, thereby improving the state of member corporations’ profits. GMO crops and related chemical applications will be increased under the pretense of climate rescue, and synthetic meats will be favored in government food programs. Even more small farms will be shuttered.

This coordinated justification for global/government food control is presented in the name of sustainability, reducing global temperature, improving animal welfare, nurturing human health, and improving equity. However, there is no evidence it does even one of these things.

We do not intend to allow a small group of globalists to control global food production and thereby achieve control of the population.

This is why Door to Freedom will place a major focus on turning this agenda around. We will encourage government (at all levels) to support small farmers rather than industrial giants, to improve animal husbandry practices, to incentivize enhancing the soil and to achieve a much healthier food supply for all.

Our methods include education, policy development, and working for change at all levels of government.  We will use the same strategy we used to stop the WHO’s agenda.  Basically, once people understand what is happening and what is at stake, they refuse to go along–whether they are citizens or political leaders.

Our first large project will be a 2-day Symposium September 6-7 (online only, and I put in the wrong dates earlier) titled The Attack on Food and Agriculture, 2nd Annual. Please join us, support us, and work with us to heal our food systems and our planet.

My best wishes,

Meryl Nass, MD

  1. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/farm-population-lowest-since-1850-s.html
  2. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1902/dec/vol-05-agriculture.html
  3. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/farm-population-lowest-since-1850-s.html
  4. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/bigger-farms-bigger-problems
  5. https://www.agrariantrust.org/blog/butzs-law-of-economics/
  6. https://books.google.com/books?id=oL2v87Rx2QQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
  7. https://usafacts.org/articles/farmer-demographics/
  8. https://www.foodactionalliance.org/home
  9. https://www.foodactionalliance.org/partners
  10. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/food-systems-2022-outlook/
  11. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/11/net-zero-emissions-cop26-climate-change/
  12. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
  13. https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/
  14. https://citizensustainable.com/human-farts/
  15. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/29/1125894105/oil-field-flaring-methane-report
  16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11191420/
  17. ibid
  18. https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/global-initiatives/one-health/  

from:    https://merylnass.substack.com/p/control-the-food-and-you-control?publication_id=746368&post_id=146736206&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Watch What You Eat

Posted on by

Doctor Warns that Our Food System Is Causing a ‘National Emergency’

March 27, 2023 Tucker Carlson 

Is the food we’re consuming slowly killing us? Dr. Mark Hyman explains how many American foods have become a detriment to our health and could be the source of chronic diseases. Dr. Hyman said that 93.2% of Americans have insulin resistance, pre-diabetes or poor metabolic health that precedes many serious diseases. He explained that the food system is biggest killer on the planet and the main culprits are sugar, carbohydrates and processed foods. He said that for every 10% of calories consumed from ultra-processed food, the risk of death goes up by 14%. The American diet is 60% ultra-processed food, and for children it is 67%. Eleven million die globally from bad food.

.

Dr. Hym

.

Learn more at Dr. Hyman’s Youtube channel:  https://www.youtube.com/@drmarkhyman/videos

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2023/03/doctor-warns-that-our-food-system-is-causing-a-national-emergency/

Who Owns Organic?

Posted on by

Infographic: A useful tool to find out who owns organic food

Lindsay Oberst · Published January 28, 2016 · 2 min read

Summary

Consider this fact: In 1995, 81 independent organic processing companies existed in the United States. Ten years later, Big Food had gobbled up all but 15 of them. The newly updated “Who Owns Organic?” infographic, originally published in 2003,  provides a snapshot of the structure of the organic industry, showing the acquisitions and alliances of the…

Consider this fact: In 1995, 81 independent organic processing companies existed in the United States. Ten years later, Big Food had gobbled up all but 15 of them.

The newly updated “Who Owns Organic?” infographic, originally published in 2003,  provides a snapshot of the structure of the organic industry, showing the acquisitions and alliances of the top 100 food processors in North America.

According to The Cornucopia Institute, this chart — authored by  Dr. Phil Howard, an Associate Professor in the Department of Community Sustainability at Michigan State — empowers consumers to see at a glance which companies dominate the organic marketplace.

See the updated version below. (Click on the image to view a larger version,
and then click on it again for even larger detail.) Or see a PDF version here.

Who owns organic food infographic

If you find the graphic hard to read, you might also wish to check out this graphic created by The Washington Post, which was published in May 2015 and shows 92 organic food brands who are owned by some of the nation’s largest food processors.

Major changes since the last version in May 2013
  • WhiteWave’s December 2013 acquisition of Earthbound Farm, the nation’s largest organic produce supplier, for $600 million.
  • Coca-Cola acquired a 10% stake in Green Mountain Coffee for $1.25 billion.
  • Bimbo Bakeries (Mexico) purchased Canada Bread from Maple Leaf Foods (Canada) for $1.7 billion.
The corporate takeover of organic food

According to a press release from The Cornucopia Institute,

“The chart shows that many iconic organic brands are owned by the titans of junk food, processed food, and sugary beverages—the same corporations that spent millions to defeat GMO labeling initiatives in California and Washington. General Mills (which owns Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, and LaraBar), Coca-Cola (Honest Tea, Odwalla), J.M. Smucker (R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic), and many other corporate owners of organic brands contributed big bucks to deny citizens’ right to know what is in their food.”

“Consumers who want food companies that embody more of the original organic ideals would do well to seek out products from independent organic firms,” Dr. Howard advises. “Given the very uneven playing field they are competing in, independent organic processors are unlikely to survive without such support.”

15 Organic brands that are still independent

Dr. Howard also created the chart, Organic Industry Structure: Major Independents and Their Subsidiary Brands. The independent brands include:

  • Alvarado Street Bakery
  • Amy’s Kitchen
  • Bob’s Red Mill
  • Cedarlane
  • Cliff Bar: Luna
  • Eden Foods
  • Equal Exchange
  • Frontier Natural Products: Simply Organic
  • Lundberg Family Farms
  • Nature’s Path: Country Choice Organic, Enviro-Kidz
  • Organic Valley: Organic Prairie
  • Pacific Natural Foods
  • Sno Pac
  • Springfield Creamery: Nancy’s
  • Traditional Medicinals
  • Yogi Tea

Dr. Howard observes, “I expect more deals to occur, since organic foods sales continue to increase faster than sales of conventional foods, and corporations are flush with cash and/or access to cheap credit.”

from:    https://foodrevolution.org/blog/organic-food-infographic/

What’s In Your Garlic?

Posted on by

Are You Eating Bleached and Chemical Laden Garlic from China?

garlic
by ANYA V

Did you know that  over 80 percent of the garlic sold worldwide comes from China? In fact, a large amount of garlic we consume here in America is  from China. The US imported 138 million pounds last year. Most consumers think that their garlic was grown in California, the “Garlic Capital of the World,” but in reality it was shipped from China. Even “organic” garlic is often from China, where organic certification methods can not be trusted.

Chinese garlic is bleached. According to Henry Bell of the Australian Garlic Industry Association, garlic from China is sprayed with chemicals to stop sprouting, to whiten garlic, and to kill insects and plant matter. He also reports that garlic is grown in untreated sewage, “Bell also calls into question some growing practices in China. “I know for a fact that some garlic growers over there use raw human sewage to fertilize their crops, and I don’t believe the Australian quarantine regulations are strict enough in terms of bacteria testing on imported produce,” he says. “I also challenge the effectiveness of the Chinese methyl bromide fumigation processes.” (http://www.theage.com.au/news/epicure/freshe…) .

Chinese garlic is heavily fumigated with methyl bromide to get rid of any bugs. Methyl bromide is a very toxic hazard. Exposure to high concentrations can cause damage to the respiratory and central nervous systems, even death. According to the UN it is 60 times more damaging than chlorine and is the base of CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons).

Chinese garlic is also contaminated with lead, sulfites and other unsafe compounds.

Chinese garlic may be treated with growth inhibitors and subjected to cold temperatures, as well as over-storage. Over storage is particularly problematic as levels of allicin, one of the major constituents in garlic responsible for its health benefits, start to decline over time.

Fortunately, you can easily spot the difference between California-grown fresh garlic and imported garlic.

Here’s how to spot a California-grown bulb:

American garlic has some of the roots left on the bottom.

American garlic is heavier  than imported garlic.

American garlic is much more  flavorful.

Source: http://livingtraditionally.com

from:    http://realfarmacy.com/bleached-chemical-garlic-china-how-to-spot/

Mom Power for Change!

Posted on by

How Thinking Mothers Are Changing the World

by Jefferey Jaxen –

2 18

Jefferey Jaxen
Contributor, ZenGardner.com

What are the ingredients for a revolution? Such a recipe can be combined together in many different ways. History has continually shown that real change that truly educates and empowers everyday people rarely comes from central governments and corporations. There is nothing more dedicated and pure on this planet than a mother’s love for her child. This timeless maternal instinct has given birth to a true revolution unlike anything witnessed in modern times.

Moms Know Best

Children are being damaged by vaccines; this is a fact. Trusting mothers have become activated by a deep desire to rescue their children from a system that has let them down, despite government regulatory agencies that are asleep at the wheel and failing to protect the health of our children. In the face of a mainstream medical community that has lost sight of its ethics and independent thinking, mothers have united through love in a common goal to provide answers for their children when the medical, legal, and political systems have given up on them. The Thinking Moms’ Revolution (TMR) was born out of a deep desire to recover their children.

Starting from the dedicated work of 23 mothers (and one dad) of children harmed by the system, the initial collaboration quickly grew into a revolution. A truly grassroots movement, the Thinking Moms have become a whirlwind of alternative research and new healing methods with a core of continual education to bring new awareness. As more mothers joined, all working without pay, the message became exponentially stronger creating a buzz. TMR, and its non-profit arm, Team TMR, has jointly authored two books (with two more on the way) leveraging their combined experience and knowledge. In addition, TMR cuts across all boundaries on their quest for healing knowledge and truth, where nothing is off limits for healing that works. TMR’s quest has educated other parents about the success of cannabidiol oil, eliminating GMO food from their children’s diet, advanced detoxification methods and much more, all while the mainstream medical community played the sidelines. The group’s presence can always be found at alternative health conferences, medical presentations, protests, regulatory hearings, and state houses to influence legislation. Even the mainstream media has been forced to take notice.

The distinct advantage of this revolution is that it is solely focused on effective, efficient, and healing truth. Mothers of damaged children have no time, energy, or care for politics, egos, and finger pointing. Perhaps this is why TMR has stood the test of time with their focused message. In 1998, the mainstream media and medical community turned their back on the correlation between gut health and the autism spectrum, originally demonstrated by Andrew Wakefield and 12 of his colleagues, when research published in the medical journal The Lancet was retracted. The members and participants of TMR were among those to see the truth behind this research and make intensive efforts toward gut healing with great success. There is no doubt that the efforts of TMR was key to an often stubborn mainstream medical community’s acceptance of revolutionary, game-changing research on gut health, and on vaccines and their connection to autism.

 Open Sourced Solutions  

On November 1st, TMR is launching the first and only interactive online TV Network, called TMR Nation TV, consisting of 10 channels, all geared toward helping families thrive and achieve health and medical freedom in today’s world. Topics that TMR has always championed on the way to recovering their children’s health will now have the opportunity to be open sourced online for others to weigh in on. Clean food, expert interviews, siblings and family stories, politics, prevention and recovery can be built upon and added to by those with valuable, everyday experience.

The importance and timing of this network and its information is essential. We are living in a time when families and communities are looking for real information that can be implemented today. The fallibility and trust of major medical studies has come under heavy fire in the face of corruption and inaccurate findings. The peer-reviewed process, once thought to be sacred, is crumbling before the public’s eye, often revealing conflicts of interest and theories that don’t always translate into reality. Trust is becoming a scarce commodity among the political and mainstream medical communities as the idea of health freedom is being pressured out of the public dialogue. The age old tradition of everyday mothers and families directly sharing what works can now be supercharged and focused, bringing effective solutions from people embodying healing and medical freedom, minus any corrupting influences such as corporate pressure, political conflicts, and plan old lies.

People Helping People 

Team TMR is a 501c3 organization that provides help to families struggling with medical, emotional, educational, and financial hardship due to complex medical needs faced by their children diagnosed with autism and other developmental disabilities. Mainstream medicine has effectively ignored autistic children and their families with their lack of clarity, answers, and overly expensive treatments. The alternative medical community, thinking outside the box, along with dedicated families, know how to recover autistic children and are doing it on a regular basis. Team TMR is supercharging that effort by handing out grant money quarterly to families in need of these proven treatments. Funds are gathered from TMR’s book sales and donations. See the Thinking Moms’ Revolution Facebook page for more information on TMR Nation TV.

+++

ZenGardner.com

from:    http://www.zengardner.com/how-thinking-mothers-are-changing-the-world/

ReFreezing Foods

Posted on by

Is It Safe to Refreeze Thawed Food?

October 19, 2015

Story at-a-glance

  • Thawed food can be safely returned to your freezer provided it was thawed safely in the first place
  • Refreezing thawed food may lead to changes in flavor or texture, but its safety will not be compromised
  • While consuming food fresh is generally best, many frozen foods retain a majority of their nutrients
By Dr. Mercola

Whether or not thawed, if previously frozen foods can be refrozen is one of the most popular questions posed to the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) food-safety hotline.

It’s also one of the most widely circulated myths that refreezing food is dangerous.

While putting a thawed piece of steak or brick of cheese back into the freezer might lead to some changes in taste or texture, it’s perfectly safe and poses no risks to your health. There are a few caveats to consider, however.

It’s Safe to Refreeze Thawed Food

Thawed food can be safely returned to your freezer provided it was thawed safely in the first place. The worst way to thaw frozen food is to let it sit out on your kitchen counter. Tina Hanes, a registered dietitian with the USDA’s FSIS, told The New York Times:1

“… [B]acteria like it warm, like we do, and multiply rapidly at room temperature. Thawing on the counter is not safe, period. You should never do that.”

In fact, it’s said the greatest factor impacting whether your food is “safe” isn’t whether it’s been previously frozen but rather is related to how much time it spends in the temperature “danger zone” (between 40 to 120 degrees F).2

In addition to thawing on the counter, thawing frozen meat, poultry, or seafood by running warm water over it is also risky from a food-safety standpoint. If you need to thaw meat or poultry quickly, it can be run with cold water over it, or submersed in cold water, changing the water every 30 minutes until it’s thawed.3

If you use this latter method for thawing, it should be cooked immediately – not refrozen or put back in the fridge. The USDA further advises:4

“Once food is thawed in the refrigerator, it is safe to refreeze it without cooking, although there may be a loss of quality due to the moisture lost through thawing. After cooking raw foods which were previously frozen, it is safe to freeze the cooked foods.

If previously cooked foods are thawed in the refrigerator, you may refreeze the unused portion. Freeze leftovers within 3 to 4 days. Do not refreeze any foods left outside the refrigerator longer than 2 hours; 1 hour in temperatures above 90 °F.

If you purchase previously frozen meat, poultry or fish at a retail store, you can refreeze if it has been handled properly.”

Do Frozen Foods Retain Their Nutrients?

It’s generally best to consume foods fresh, as soon after harvest as possible. However, frozen foods aren’t a bad alternative when this isn’t possible. In some ways, frozen foods may even be “fresher” than foods at your supermarket.

This is because produce is typically frozen soon after harvest, whereas fresh produce may be shipped thousands of miles before it actually reaches your local store (with nutrients degrading the entire way).

Research suggests fresh vegetables may lose up to 45 percent of their nutrients from the time they’re harvested to the time they’re purchased at a grocery store.5 On the other hand, research suggests frozen foods may contain comparable nutrients as fresh foods, and at times be even more nutritious. For instance:6

  • Frozen broccoli had more vitamin C, lutein, and beta-carotene but lower levels of polyphenols (some frozen broccoli has also been found to lack the ability to produce cancer-fighting sulforaphane7)
  • Frozen carrots had three times more lutein and twice as much beta-carotene, as well as more vitamin C and polyphenols
  • Frozen sprouts had higher levels of all measured nutrients
  • Frozen blueberries, green beans, raspberries, and pears also had higher levels of vitamin C and polyphenols

Separate research on frozen versus fresh carrots, broccoli, spinach, strawberries, and more concluded “overall, the vitamin content of the frozen commodities was comparable to and occasionally higher than that of their fresh counterparts.”8

The exception in this case was beta-carotene, which declined significantly in some of the frozen produce.

There’s still no question that the most nutrient-rich food will be fresh, provided you can eat in within a short time from harvest (i.e. produce you either grow yourself or purchase from a local farm or farmer’s market). However, frozen foods are still fairly nutritious and worthy of consumption if locally grown fresh foods are not available.

Freezing Your Food Can Help Cut Down on Food Waste

The other benefit to freezing your food (or re-freezing it) is cutting down on food waste. Organic waste, such as that from spoiled food, is actually the second highest component of landfills in the US. Organic landfill waste has increased by 50 percent per capita since 1974.9

A report from the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) revealed that 40 percent of food in the US goes uneaten, which amounts to a waste of more than 20 pounds of food per person, every month. This amounts to upwards of $2,275 in annual losses for the average US household of four.10 This isn’t simply a matter of the food itself, as with this waste comes:

  • $165 billion that is essentially “thrown out”
  • 25 percent of freshwater usage, wasted
  • Huge amounts of unnecessary chemicals, energy, and land use, also wasted
  • Rotting food in landfills, which accounts for nearly 25 percent of US methane emissions

The NRDC report also estimates:11

“… [F]ood saved by reducing losses by just 15 percent could feed more than 25 million Americans every year at a time when one in six Americans lack a secure supply of food to their tables.”

In all, it’s estimated US families throw out about 25 percent of the food and beverages they buy. In the UK, about two-thirds of household food waste is due to food spoiling before it is used. And shockingly, more fruits and vegetables are wasted in the US food system than are actually consumed (52 percent are wasted versus 48 percent consumed)!12

So if you find you’ve brought home more perishable food than you can consume, wrap it up tight and put it in your freezer (with the exception of the foods that follow… ).

Certain Foods Do Not Freeze Well

Most foods can be frozen successfully, provide you store them correctly in your freezer. However, freezing does alter or degrade the quality of some items. Spices and seasonings are particularly vulnerable.

Foods Usual Use Condition After Thawing
Cabbage,* celery, cress, cucumbers,* endive, lettuce, parsley, and radishes As raw salad Limp, water-logged, quickly develops oxidized color, aroma, and flavor
Irish potatoes, baked or boiled In soups, salads, sauces, or with butter Soft, crumbly, water-logged, and mealy
Cooked macaroni, spaghetti, or rice When frozen alone for later use Mushy, tastes warmed over
Egg whites, cooked In salads, creamed foods, sandwiches, sauces, gravy, or desserts Soft, tough, rubbery, and spongy
Meringue In desserts Soft, tough, rubbery, and spongy
Icings made from egg whites Cakes, cookies Frothy, weeps
Cream or custard fillings Pies, baked goods Separates, watery, and lumpy
Milk sauces For casseroles or gravies May curdle or separate
Sour cream As topping, in salads Separates, watery
Cheese or crumb toppings On casseroles Soggy
Mayonnaise or salad dressing On sandwiches (not in salads) Separates
Gelatin In salads or desserts Weeps
Fruit jelly Sandwiches May soak bread
Fried foods All except French fried potatoes and onion rings Lose crispness, become soggy
*Cucumbers and cabbage can be frozen as marinated products such as “freezer slaw” or “freezer pickles.” These do not have the same texture as regular slaw or pickles.

According to the National Center for Home Food Preservation, some herbs, such as onion and paprika, change flavor when frozen, while others tend to get stronger (this applies to pepper, cloves, garlic, and green pepper).

Frozen curry may develop a “musty off-flavor,” while salt may lose its flavor and even increase rancidity of foods containing fat. If you know a food will be going in the freezer (such as a big batch of tomato sauce), your best bet is to season it lightly prior to freezing and then add your finishing touches after it’s been thawed and re-heated.13 The National Center for Home Food Preservation has also posted this useful chart of foods that generally do not freeze well:14

How to Best Freeze 5 Common Foods

By taking a few moments to properly wrap and prepare your food for the freezer, you can extend its freezer shelf life and ensure a higher-quality product once thawed. The National Center for Home Food Preservation has a comprehensive guide on how to best freeze common foods.15 Examples are as follows:16

  • Butter: Mold into the shape of your choice (squares, patties, etc.), wrap tightly in aluminum foil or freezer paper, and then seal in moisture-vapor resistant containers. Recommended freezer storage time is six to nine months.
  • Cheese: Hard or semi-hard cheese should be cut into 1.5 to one-pound sizes the packaged in moisture-vapor resistant material. It may be crumbly and mealy when thawed but will still be flavorful. Cream cheese, cottage cheese, and ricotta cheese generally do not freeze well.
  • Blueberries: Do not wash blueberries. Pack them dry into containers, leaving headspace; this allows the food to expand without breaking the packaging. You can also freeze them flat on a tray then pack them into containers once frozen.
  • Meat (beef, lamp, and pork): Package the meat in freezer paper or wrap. Store-bought meats should be over-wrapped with freezer paper (unless it is wrapped in a newer heavy-duty film, which needs no overwrap).
  • Tomatoes: Wash the tomatoes and dip them in boiling water for 30 seconds to loosen skins. Peel and core the tomatoes, then pack into containers, using one-inch headspace (the tomatoes can be frozen whole or in pieces). Once thawed, the tomatoes will no longer be solid so plan to use them in cooking.

More Freezer Pointers

If you’re wondering how long food will keep in your freezer, it’s not forever. Fruits and vegetables will last longest, about eight to 12 months, while ground meat maintains its quality for about three or four months. Fish ranges from three to six months while poultry will keep for six to nine months.

Keep in mind that food will still be safe to consume after these storage times, but it may not be as high in quality (i.e. its texture or flavor may change). Additional pointers to help you successfully store food in the freezer include the following from The National Center for Home Food Preservation:17

  • Freeze foods at 0°F or lower. To facilitate more rapid freezing, set the temperature control at -10°F or lower about 24 hours in advance.
  • Freeze foods as soon as they are packed and sealed.
  • Do not overload your freezer with unfrozen food. Add only the amount that will freeze within 24 hours, which is usually 2 to 3 pounds of food per cubic foot of storage space. Overloading slows down the freezing rate, and foods that freeze too slowly may lose quality.
  • Place packages in contact with refrigerated surfaces in the coldest part of the freezer.
  • Leave a little space between packages so air can circulate freely. Then, when the food is frozen, store the packages close together.

from:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/10/19/refreezing-thawed-food.aspx?e_cid=20151019Z1_DNL_art_3&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art3&utm_campaign=20151019Z1&et_cid=DM88606&et_rid=1175710562

Monsanto’s Debunking Dept.

Posted on by

Monsanto Scientist Lets a Massive Secret Slip

by PAUL FASSA

Monsanto RoundupThere’s nothing better than seeing those who work for the devil get their feet caught in their mouths. There have been two events recently that make one cheer for our side as Monsanto embarks on challenging the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analysis of Roundup as a carcinogenic that was published in the March 2015 journal The Lancet Oncology.

Monsanto’s vice president of global regulatory affairs Philip Miller asserted the following:
“We question the quality of the assessment. The WHO has something to explain.” In other words, we think we have the clout to make sure the WHO discredits this finding as “unscientific”.

After all, Monsanto has managed to keep their false PR front up for a couple of decades while getting scientists who question Monsanto’s science discredited, their publications removed, and even fired from long term academic positions. Nasty bunch they are.

Interesting that Monsanto challenges independent studies while not producing their own funded research studies for scrutiny. A lot of scientists are on the dole with Monsanto. But it appears Monsanto’s bad karma may be catching up with them.

Monsanto’s Discredit Bureau

Daily Koss posted an article by occupystephanie  where she attended a talk to agricultural students by Dr. William “Bill” Moar, whose mission it is to assure everyone of Monsanto products safety. Here’s what she revealed:

One student asked what Monsanto was doing to counter the “bad science” around their work. Dr. Moar, perhaps forgetting that this was a public event, then revealed that Monsanto indeed had “an entire department” (waving his arm for emphasis) dedicated to “debunking” science which disagreed with theirs. As far as I know this is the first time that a Monsanto functionary has publically admitted that they have such an entity which brings their immense political and financial weight to bear on scientists who dare to publish against them. The Discredit Bureau will not be found on their official website.

The challenge for Monsanto’s Discredit Bureau is steep in attacking the unimpeachably respected Lancet and the international scientific bodies of WHO and IARC. However, they have no choice but to attack since the stakes are so very high for them. Glyphosate is their hallmark product upon which the majority of their profits are based. Make no mistake, this is extremely bad news for Monsanto.

Monsanto holds up the sheer abundance of their own well-funded studies citing the safety of Glyphosate, done over only the past twenty years which is a short period of time in scientific inquiry particularly when dissenting research is actively suppressed.  They also hold up the findings of regulatory bodies, particularly in the United States where the revolving door between agrochemical corporations and government spins at high speed.

 

Controversial Funny Interview That Went Viral; Another Blow to Monsanto’s Image

The clip comes from a French documentary soon to be released where Dr. Patrick Moore is being interviewed about Monsanto’s Golden Rice. The interviewer throws a curve at Moore about Roundup’s safety and Moore quips that it’s so safe you could drink it without harm. What happens next is a hoot!

The controversy whirls around who Patrick Moore actually is. Monsanto says he’s not a lobbyist. Monsanto mouthpiece Forbes jumps all over that fact and introduces that factoid that he’s from Greenpeace. tumblr_inline_n51vbny9lt1qgfflu

Greenpeace claims he’s simply a PR whore for whomever will pay, and after his short stint with Greenpeace Canada years ago he went into representing various industries that Greenpeace was opposing while claiming to be an environmentalist.

From Greenpeace International’s site: “Media outlets often either state or imply that Mr. Moore still represents Greenpeace, or fail to mention that he is a paid lobbyist and not an independent source.” The Greenpeace site lists Moore’s resume’ representing polluting industries after a brief stint with Greenpeace of Canada years ago.

mark-lynas-400

He is most likely a shill who is covertly supported by Monsanto, just as former Greenpeacer Mark Lynas, an author and “environmental climate change activist”  has become an international spokesman for Monsanto and the biotech industry after doing a bit of GMO bashing prior to his conversion.

Nothing confuses those uncertain about GMOs  more than outspoken shills, paid covertly, who claim to be environmentalists now preaching how they “see the science” of GMOs for saving the world from any future food crisis without polluting the environment.

from:    http://www.realfarmacy.com/monsanto-scientist-lets-massive-secret-slip/

Irradiated Foods

Posted on by

Which Foods Are Irradiated and Sterilized For Claims of Safety?

food irradiation-1Marco Torres, Prevent Disease
Waking Times

The primary claim by the food industry: As the world’s population climbs, the sustainable production and distribution of food is balanced against the need to ensure its chemical and microbiological safety. Although science has been unable to establish the long-term safety of food irradiation and the lasting health effects if any, almost every food category can now be legally irradiated by government regulators, even at the expense of nutritional content or our health.

By 2030, food demand is expected to increase by 50 percent. Global food transport has been increasing at an exponential rate since the 1960s — faster than food production itself.

What can be done? People will no longer be able to safely rely on the food industry to feed themselves. Food scientists are voicing from their petrified little minds that as the system grows, so will the need to pressure regulation and surveillance organizations to track contaminants and prevent deadly outbreaks. It seems that every outbreak initiates government action to promote the agenda of seizing more control over the food supply through expanded “food safety” regulations.

Senior food scientist Toby MacDonald says the only way to protect the population is through current and modified sterilization techniques that will make food safe for all. “Current and modified practices including irradiation and pasteurization are extremely effective in reducing harmful bacteria and pathogens in the food supply,” he proclaimed. MacDonald says that as food demand reaches its climax, proper sterilization will be necessary at all levels. “An increase of 50 percent in food demand by 2030 will require more funding into food monitoring infrastructures so that all food with the potential to produce outbreaks can be properly sterilized to prevent those outbreaks,” he added.

What’s Wrong With Irradiated Foods?

Irradiated foods are exposed to high level radiation for the purpose of sterilizing it. There is an abundance of convincing evidence in the refereed scientific literature that the condensation products of the free radicals formed during irradiation produce statistically significant increases in carcinogenesis, mutagenesis and cardiovascular disease in animals and man. This is in addition to the destruction of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients.

2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-ACBs) are radiolytic derivatives of triglycerides found exclusively in irradiated food. The compounds are generated proportionally to fat content of the food and the dose of absorbed radiation.

Research in animals suggests the compounds may promote tumor growth and colon cancer, and studies show 2-alkylcyclobutanones are able to cross the intestinal barrier, enter into the bloodstream, and be stored in the fat tissue of an animal. The compounds have also been shown to be cytotoxic and genotoxic, which means they may damage cells and DNA, respectively. Studies on human cells also revealed potential cancer-causing effects, with researchers concluding “this compound may be regarded as a possible risk factor for processes in colon carcinogenesis related to initiation and progression.”

Irradiated Foods List

The following is a list of irradiated foods provided for the American Council on Science and Health.

Purpose of Irradiation Irradiated Dose Products
Range (kGy*)
Low Dose (up to 1 kGy)
(a) Inhibition of sprouting 0.06-0.20 Potatoes, onions, garlic, gin-
ger root, chestnut, etc.
(b) Insect disinfestation 0.15-1.0 Cereals and legumes, fresh
(including quarantine treat- and dried fruits, dried fish
ment) and meat, etc.
(c) Parasite disinfection 0.3-1.0 Fresh pork, freshwater fish,
fresh fruits.
(d) Delay of ripening 0.5-1.0 Fresh fruits.
Medium Dose (1-10 kGy)
(a) Extension of shelf-life 1.0-3.0 Raw fish and seafood, fruits
and vegetables.
(b) Inactivation of spoilage 1.0-7.0 Raw and frozen seafood,
and pathogenic bacteria meat and poultry, spices and
dried vegetable seasonings.
(c) Improving technical 3.0-7.0 Increasing juice yield
properties of foods (grapes), reducing cooking
time (dehydrated vegeta-
bles)
High Dose (above 10 kGy)
(a) Industrial sterilization 30-50 Meat, poultry, seafood,
(in combination with mild sausages, prepared meals,
heat) hospital diets, etc.
(b) Decontamination of cer- 10-50 Spices, enzyme prepara-
tain food additives and tions, natural gum, gel, etc.
ingredients

In essence, most foods available at major grocery chains can be potentially irradiated since the list is inclusive of all food categories.

The population cannot protect itself from the carcinogenic and other harmful insults to the body placed into the food supplies. There is absolutely no tangible benefit to be traded for the possible increased incidence of malignant disease one to three decades in the future.

The United States currently has the highest rate of food irradiation in the world. Canadian neighbours approve only onions, potatoes, wheat, flour, whole wheat flour, and whole or ground spices and dehydrated seasonings for irradiation and sale in Canada. Unfortunately for Canadians, this means they too cannot benefit from the high antioxidant values of spices since the majority would be irradiated.

Irradiation works by splitting chemical bonds in molecules with high energy beams to form ions and free radicals. When sufficient critical bonds are split in organisms contaminating a food, the organism is killed. Comparable bonds are split in the food. Ions are stable; free radicals contain an unpaired electron and are inherently unstable and therefore reactive. How long free radicals remain in food treated with a given dose of radiation or the reaction products formed in a given food cannot be calculated but must be tested experimentally for each food. Different doses of radiation will produce different amounts and kinds of products.

The kinds of bonds split in a given molecule are governed by statistical considerations. Thus, while most molecules of a given fatty acid, for example, may be split in a certain manner, other molecules of the same fatty acid will be split differently. A free radical can either combine with another free radical to form a stable compound, or it can initiate a [chemical] chain reaction by reacting with a stable molecule to form another free radical, et cetera, until the chain is terminated by the reaction of two free radicals to form a stable compound. These reactions continue long after the irradiation procedure.

There are a vast number of new molecules that can be formed from irradiation of a single molecular species, to say nothing of a complicated mixture such as food. Furthermore, the final number and types of new molecules formed will depend on the other molecules present in the sample. Thus, free radicals originating from fats could form new compounds with proteins, nucleic acids [DNA], and so forth.

Irradiation Damages the Quality of Food

The free radicals caused by irradiation kill some bacteria, but they also bounce around in the food, damage vitamins and enzymes, and combine with existing chemicals (like pesticides) in the food to form new chemicals, called unique radiolytic products (URPs).

Some of these URPs are known toxins (benzene, formaldehyde, lipid peroxides) and some are unique to irradiated foods. Scientists have not studied the long-term effect of these new chemicals in our diet. Therefore, we cannot assume they are safe.

Irradiated foods can lose 5%-80% of many vitamins (A, C, E, K and B complex). The amount of loss depends on the dose of irradiation and the length of storage time.

Most of the food in the American diet is already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for irradiation: beef, pork, lamb, poultry, wheat, wheat flour, vegetables, fruits, shell eggs, seeds for sprouting, spices, herb teas. (Dairy is already pasteurized).

Irradiation damages the natural digestive enzymes found in raw foods. This means the body has to work harder to digest them.

If unlabeled, raw foods that have been irradiated look like fresh foods, but nutritionally they are like cooked foods, with decreased vitamins and enzymes. The FDA allows these foods to be labeled “fresh.”

Unproven Science

Science has not proved that a long-term diet of irradiated foods is safe for human health.

Today, governments around the world have extrapolated preliminary data on irradiation and food safety and have attempted to apply these short-term benefits to long-term food applications. This sets a dangerous precedent which may alter food chemistry and affect human health known to cause neurological damage.

The longest human feeding study was 15 weeks. No one knows the long-term effects of a life-long diet that includes foods which will be frequently irradiated, such as meat, chicken, vegetables, fruits, salads, sprouts and juices.

There are no studies on the effects of feeding babies or children diets containing irradiated foods, except a very small and controversial study from India that showed health effects.

Studies on animals fed irradiated foods have shown increased tumors, reproductive failures and kidney damage. Some possible causes are: irradiation-induced vitamin deficiencies, the inactivity of enzymes in the food, DNA damage, and toxic radiolytic products in the food.

The FDA based its approval of irradiation for poultry on only 5 of 441 animal-feeding studies. Marcia van Gemert, Ph.D., the toxicologist who chaired the FDA committee that approved irradiation, later said, “These studies reviewed in the 1982 literature from the FDA were not adequate by 1982 standards, and are even less accurate by 1993 standards to evaluate the safety of any product, especially a food product such as irradiated food.” The 5 studies are not a good basis for approval of irradiation for humans, because they showed health effects on the animals or were conducted using irradiation at lower energies than those the FDA eventually approved.

The FDA based its approval of irradiation for fruits and vegetables on a theoretical calculation of the amount of URPs in the diet from one 7.5 oz. serving/day of irradiated food. Considering the different kinds of foods approved for irradiation, this quantity is too small and the calculation is irrelevant.

Even with current labeling requirements, people cannot avoid eating irradiated food. That means there is no control group, and epidemiologists will never be able to determine if irradiated food has any health effects.

Science is always changing. The science of today is not the science of tomorrow. The science we have today is not adequate to prove the long-term safety of food irradiation.

Why Fresh, Living Produce Helps Prevent Sickness

The USDA has zero recognition of the difference between living produce and dead produce. To uneducated government bureaucrats, pasteurized or irradiated vegetable juice is identical to fresh, raw, living vegetable juice. They believe this because they’ve never been taught about the phytonutrients, digestive enzymes and life force properties that are found in fresh foods, but that are destroyed through heat or irradiation.

Even a simple leaf of spinach contains hundreds of natural medicines — phytonutrients that help prevent cancer, eye diseases, nervous system disorders, heart disease and much more. Every living vegetable is a powerhouse of disease-fighting medicine: Broccoli prevents cancer, beet greens cleanse the liver, cilantro removes heavy metals, celery prevents cancer, berries prevent heart disease and dark leafy greens help prevent over a dozen serious health conditions while boosting immune function and helping prevent other infections. But when you subject these fruits and vegetables to enough radiation to kill 99.9% of the pathogens that may be hitching a ride, you also destroy many of the phytonutrients responsible for these tremendous health benefits.

This means that while irradiating food may decrease outbreaks of food-borne illnesses, it will have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of people who get sick from other infections (and chronic diseases) due to the fact that their source of natural medicine has been destroyed.

If the irradiation of fresh produce goes into effect, rates of infection among consumers will inevitablly increase, not decrease, due to the removal of immune-boosting natural medicine from the food supply. Consumers will also experience higher rates of cancer, heart disease, dementia, eye disorders, diabetes and even obesity. By destroying these thousands of healing phytonutrients, irradiation will leave many consumers defenseless against modern society’s many health challenges.

Electron-beam Irradiation Today, Nuclear Irradiation Tomorrow.

The source of the irradiation is not listed on the label. The original sponsor of food irradiation in the US was the Department of Energy, which wanted to create a favorable image of nuclear power as well as dispose of radioactive waste. These goals have not changed. Cobalt-60, which is used for irradiation, must be manufaactured in a nuclear reactor.

Many foods cannot be irradiated using electron beams. E-beams only penetrate 1-1.5 inches on each side, and are suitable only for flat, evenly sized foods like patties. Large fruits, foods in boxes, and irregularly shaped foods must be irradiated using x-rays or gamma rays from nuclear materials.

Countries that lack a cheap and reliable source of electricity for e-beams use nuclear materials. Opening U.S. markets to irradiated food encourages the spread of nuclear irradiation worldwide.

Irradiation Doesn’t Provide Clean Food

Because irradiation doesn’t kill all the bacteria in a food, the ones that survive are by definition radiation-resistant. These bacteria will multiply and eventually work their way back to the ‘animal factories’. Soon thereafter, the bacteria that contaminate the meat will no longer be killed by currently approved doses of irradiation. The technology will no longer be usable, while stronger bacteria contaminate our food supply.

People may become more careless about sanitation if irradiation is widely used. Irradiation doesn’t kill all the bacteria in a food. In a few hours at room temperature, the bacteria remaining in meat or poultry after irradiation can multiply to the level existing before irradiation.

Some bacteria, like the one that causes botulism, as well as viruses and prions (which are believed to cause Mad Cow Disease) are not killed by current doses of irradiation.

Irradiation encourages food producers to cut corners on sanitation, because they can ‘clean up’ the food just before it is shipped.

What is ironic about regulators that approve food irradiation, is that they believe through their flawed science that irradiated foods are safe, nutritious and wholesome.

More Reasons to be Wary of Irradiation

Needless to say, the research to date is raising major red flags that irradiation is NOT as safe as food safety officials would have you believe. In addition to the formation of potentially toxic 2-ACBs, irradiation leads to the formation of furan from ascorbic acid, fructose, sucrose, or glucose. Furan in foods has been linked to liver toxicity, including carcinogenicity.

Another study found that cats developed “mysterious” and “remarkable”severe neurological dysfunction, including movement disorders, vision loss and paralysis, after being fed a diet of irradiated foods during gestation. When they were taken off the irradiated foods, they slowly recovered. This is a major clue that irradiated foods deserve some serious regulatory scrutiny, but unfortunately they have already infiltrated the food system. And it’s not as though this concerning evidence was just recently brought to light. One paper on potential dangers, prepared for the meeting of the Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee on Irradiated Food, dates back to 1969. The author stated:

“…irradiation can bring about chemical transformations in food and food components resulting in the formation of potential mutagens.”

One can reasonably conclude that if all food is sterilized by 2030, then we will have another epidemic on our hands. Millions will become sick and die from nutritionally deficient foods. Perhaps this has been the plan all along. So we have one option–we must reject our current patterns of food consumerism. We need sustainable communities with independent food sources free from big argiculture and the food industry. It is the only way to guarantee a food supply free of toxins, genetically modified organisms, pasteurization and irradation. It will be the only way to maintain food sources that nourish our bodies and provide health rather than disease.

from:    http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/10/15/foods-irradiated-sterilized-claims-safety/

Poisons & Packaging

Posted on by

Study Finds 175 Dangerous Chemicals in Food Packaging

http://themindunleashed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/studyyy.jpg

A total of 175 chemicals known to be harmful for health are used in food packaging on both sides of the Atlantic, in the European Union countries and the United States, according to a study published by a Swiss non-governmental organization.

As the study authors point out, the use of many of these substances, which are linked to cancer, hormonal disorders or infertility in other products has already been limited or is to be prohibited. However, these regulations do not concern food packaging due to gaps in legislation.

Researchers of the Food Packaging Forum, a non-governmental organization in Switzerland, compared two lists of hazardous chemicals – the so-called ‘Substitute it now!‘ list, also known as Sin, and the TEDX list of endocrine disruptors – with three official lists of substances allowed to be used in the manufacture of food packaging, in particular, the ESCO Working Group list of non-plastic food contact substances by European Food Safety Authority, Annex I of EC 10/2011 which includes the allowed plastic food contact substances and the so-called Pew list of food additives authorized in the United States.

As noted, about 175 chemicals contained in the Sin and the TEDX lists (such as phthalates, organotins and benzophenones) were identified in at least one, or even in all of the official lists of substances allowed to be used for food packaging.

The majority of these chemicals meet, as stated, the criteria set by the European regulation concerning the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals (REACH) to be qualified as “Substances of Very High Concern” (SVHC). 21 of them have even been officially recognized as substances of very high concern by the European Chemicals Agency, while six are to be gradually restricted by EU under REACH.

In their study, published in the journal ‘Food Additives and Contaminants: Part A’, the researchers point out that the process of the gradual restriction of the substances of very high concern under REACH will not be directly connected with the chemicals used in food packaging, as they are regulated by separate legislation. “As a consequence, chemicals with highly toxic properties may legally be used in the production of food contact materials, but not in other consumer products such as computers, textiles and paints even though exposure through food contact materials may be far more relevant,” note the researchers.

Lead researcher of the study and managing director of the Food Packaging Forum Dr Jane Muncke said that the role of this study is not to analyze the ways in which the loopholes in legislation can be avoided, but to highlight the issue. “That is one thing we are highlighting, that currently these regulations don’t cover food packaging,” she said.

Since it is difficult to restrict the substances that are already authorized, the researchers recommend food manufacturers to refrain from using hazardous substances in their products and replace them with safer alternatives. “From a consumer perspective, it is certainly unexpected and undesirable to find chemicals of concern being intentionally used in FCMs, and thus it seems appropriate to replace substances case-by-case with inherently safer alternatives,” said Dr Muncke. 

The best way to ensure that you avoid these chemicals ending up in your body would be to steer clear of packaged food all together. The alternative? Trusting the government and the food producers to protect you.

from:    http://themindunleashed.org/2014/08/study-finds-175-dangerous-chemicals-food-packaging-usa-europe.html

Foods Banned Elsewhere Sold in US

Posted on by

10 Foods Sold in the U.S. That Are Banned Elsewhere

by OracleTalk Curator on January 3, 2014
cereal_aisle_oracleatlk
Facebook Twitter

This Article First Appeared At Care2.com:

Americans are slowly realizing that food sold in the US doesn’t just taste different than foods sold in other countries, it’s created differently. Sadly, many U.S. foods are BANNED in Europe — and for good reason. Take a look at the plummeting health of Americans; what role might toxic foods play in our skyrocketing disease rates?

Below are 10 American foods that are banned elsewhere.

#1:  Farm-Raised Salmon

Farm-raised fish is usually fed an unnatural diet of genetically engineered (GE) grains, antibiotics and chemicals unsafe for humans. To mask the resulting grayish flesh, they’re given toxic and potentially eyesight-damaging synthetic astaxanthin.

To determine wild from farm-raised salmon (sold in most restaurants), wild sockeye gets its red color from natural astaxanthin and carotenoids. The white “fat strips” are thin, meaning it’s lean. Pale pink fish and wide fat marks are a sign of farmed salmon.

Avoid “Atlantic Salmon.” Look for “Alaskan” or “sockeye,” which is illegal to farm and has very high astaxanthin concentrations.

Where it’s banned: Australia and New Zealand

#2:  Genetically Engineered Papaya

Most Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered to be ringspot virus-resistant. But research shows animals fed GE foods like corn and soy suffer intestinal damage, multiple-organ damage, massive tumors, birth defects, premature death and/or nearly complete sterility by the third generation. Dangers to humans are unknown.

Where it’s banned: The European Union

#3:  Ractopamine-Tainted Meat

About 45 percent of US pigs, 30 percent of cattle and an unknown percentage of turkeys are plumped with the asthma drug ractopamine before slaughter. Up to 20 percent of ractopamine is still there when you buy it.

Since 1998, more than 1,700 US pork lovers have been “poisoned” this way. For this very health threat, ractopamine-laced meats are banned in 160 different countries! Russia issued a ban on US meat imports, effective February 11, 2013, until it’s certified ractopamine-free. In animals, it’s linked to reducedreproductive function, increased mastitis and increased death. It damages the human cardiovascular system and may cause hyperactivity, chromosomal abnormalities and behavioral changes. Currently, US meats aren’t even tested for it.

Where it’s banned: 160 countries across Europe, Russia, mainland China and Republic of China (Taiwan).

#4:  Flame Retardant Drinks

Mountain Dew and other drinks in the US contain the synthetic chemical brominated vegetable oil (BVO), originally patented as a flame retardant.

BVO bioaccumulates in human tissue and breast milk; animal studies report reproductive and behavioral problems. Bromine alters the central nervous and endocrine systems and promotes iodine deficiency, causing skin rashes, acne, loss of appetite, fatigue and cardiac arrhythmias. The featured article explains:

“The FDA has flip-flopped on BVO’s safety, originally classifying it as ‘generally recognized as safe,’ but reversing that call, now defining it as an ‘interim food additive,’ a category reserved for possibly questionable substances used in food.”

Where it’s banned: Europe and Japan

#5:  Processed Foods and Artificial Food Dyes

More than 3,000 preservatives, flavorings and colors are added to US foods, many of which are banned in other countries. The featured article noted:

“Boxed Mac & Cheese, cheddar flavored crackers, Jell-O and many kids’ cereals contain red 40, yellow 5, yellow 6 and/or blue 2 … (which) can cause behavioral problems as well as cancer, birth defects and other health problems in laboratory animals. Red 40 and yellow 6 are also suspected of causing an allergy-like hypersensitivity reaction in children. The Center for Science in the Public Interest reports that some dyes are also “contaminated with known carcinogens.”

In countries where these food dyes are banned, companies like Kraft employ natural colorants like paprika extract and beetroot.

Where it’s banned: Norway and Austria. Britain advised companies against using food dyes by the end of 2009. The European Union requires a warning notice on most foods containing dyes.

#6:  Arsenic-Laced Chicken

Arsenic-based drugs are approved in US-produced animal feed because they cause animals to grow quicker and meats products to look pinker and “fresher.” The FDA says arsenic-based drugs are safe safe because they contain organic arsenic … But organic arsenic can turn into inorganic arsenic, run through contaminated manure and leach into drinking water.

The European Union has never approved using arsenic in animal feed; US environmental groups have sued the FDA to remove them.

Where it’s banned: The European Union

#7:  Bread with Potassium Bromate

Bread, hamburger and hotdog buns are “enriched” with potassium bromate, or bromide, linked to kidney and nervous system damage, thyroid problems, gastrointestinal discomfort and cancer.

While commercial baking companies claim it renders dough more tolerable to bread hooks, Pepperidge Farm and others use only unbromated flour without experiencing “structural problems.”

Where it’s banned: Canada, China and the EU

#8:  Olestra/Olean

Olestra, or Olean, created by Procter & Gamble, is a calorie- and cholesterol-free fat substitute in fat-free snacks like chips and french fries. Three years ago, Time Magazine named it one of the worst 50 inventions ever. MSN noted:

“Not only did a 2011 study from Purdue University conclude rats fed potato chips made with Olean gained weight … several reports of adverse intestinal reactions to the fake fat include diarrhea, cramps and leaky bowels. And because it interferes  with the absorption of fat soluble vitamins such as A, D, E and K, the FDA requires these vitamins be added to any product made with Olean or olestra.”

Where it’s banned: The UK and Canada

#9:  Preservatives BHA and BHT

BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole) and BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene) are common preservatives in foods like cereal, nut mixes, chewing gum, butter spread, meat and beer. The National Toxicology Program’s 2011 Report on Carcinogens says BHA may trigger allergic reactions and hyperactivity and “is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”

Where it’s banned: Both are banned in parts of the European Union and Japan; the UK doesn’t allow BHA in infant foods.

#10:  Milk and Dairy Products Made with rBGH

Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a synthetic version of natural bovine hormone is injected into cows to increase milk production. Monsanto developed it from genetically engineered E. coli bacteria, marketed as “Posilac.”

But it’s banned in at least 30 other nations. Why? It converts normal tissue cells into cancerous ones, increasing colorectal, prostate and breast cancer risks. Among other diseases, injected cows suffer exorbitant rates of mastitis, contaminating milk with pus and antibiotics.

In 1997, two Fox-affiliate investigative journalists, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson attempted to expose thedangers of rBGH, but lawyers for Monsanto – a major advertiser with the Florida network – sent letters promising “dire consequences” if the story aired.

In 1999, the United Nations Safety Agency ruled unanimously not to endorse rBGH milk, resulting in an international ban on US milk.

The Cancer Prevention Coalition, trying for years to affect a dairy industry ban of rBGH, resubmitting apetition to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg in January 2010, but the FDA sticks to its false position that rBGH-treated milk is no different than milk from untreated cows.

Action: Look for products labeled “rBGH-free” or “No rBGH.”

Where it’s banned: Australia, New Zealand, Israel, EU and Canada

Take Control of Your Health with REAL Food

If you value your health, avoid foods containing harmful ingredients and ditch processed foods entirely – even if they are permitted in the US.  Opt for fresh whole foods, organic, grass-fed/pasture-raised beef and poultry, dairy products and eggs.

from:    http://oracletalk.com/10-foods-sold-u-s-banned-elsewhere/