Tag Archives: Food Safety

Artificial Eggs on The Horizon

Posted on by

Bill Gates GMO Zombie Eggs

Thursday, November 21, 2013 by: S. D. Wells

(NaturalNews) Are you eating fake eggs made in a laboratory? Who knew? This is like some mutated organism plasma-like “goo” from the movie “Alien.” Who in their right mind would dare eat it? Well, lots of people who don’t know that they’re eating it, that’s who. When will it be substituted and remain as such without labels or warnings in just about every egg-containing packaged item that is sold to the masses by Corporate America and infects the body with GM bacteria? Welcome to zombie food central and the inside story on this nightmare coming to grocery stores everywhere. Some say it’s already in the food. But wait, it’s made from plants! Didn’t you hear? It’s time to get brainwashed, again, by the richest people on the planet.

A radical “artificial egg” backed by Paypal billionaire Peter Thiel and the “infamous” Bill Gates goes on sale in US supermarkets for the first time. Made from plants, it can replace eggs in everything from cakes to mayonnaise – without a chicken in the equation whatsoever. The “Bio-tech food mutation” team today have already started selling their “plant egg”! It looks like it will be first sold at none other than the beloved “Whole Foods” in California – and some say it could “soon be available in supermarkets worldwide.”

How many products will contain genetically modified “plant” eggs? What could you accidentally bake with this synthetic science mystery? Will you make cookies or brownies for the kids? Will you slop some “bio” mayonnaise on your next sandwich, or will you pour some synthetic salad dressing on your greens? Will it be in all the pasta and bread or lumped into muffins for that “bouncy” quality that stays “fresh” so long? This synthetic nightmare will contain no real egg whatsoever. You know they’ll call it something real nifty too, like “Beyond the Egg” mayonnaise, or the “Incredible Scramble!” The name has to reflect the opposite of what it’s really all about.

That’s why GMOs are unlabeled in America, and saying that it doesn’t need to be listed in the ingredients means it’s the MOST dangerous ingredient mankind could know! Get it? Soon, aspartame will be in milk, unlabeled, and all those conventional milk worshipers will be consuming artificial sweetener on top of all those hormones, antibiotics and pus from the cow udders. That’s where conventional cheese is derived, so pay attention closely to the new FAKE eggs, and try not to eat “cancer” intentionally or unintentionally.

Of course, they’ll claim the nutritional values are the same. “They” being the regulatory organization that approves it (FDA/Monsanto), the companies that test it for health dangers (the manufacturers who make billions) and those scientific “peer-reviewed” tests (altered results) will be shared with the public (the shareholders) so that proper diet (pharmaceutical medications) can be addressed by the doctors who recommend it (surgeons and oncologists that work on you later). This is the nature of the GM beast.

Everyone should know doctors who have a degree in nutrition to get the right “news” and the right “advice” on how food affects your body, your mind and your health. Some doctors know the dangers of GMOs and will tell you all about it! (http://www.naturopathic.org) Research more on this: “Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food.” (http://www.responsibletechnology.org)

Fake egg makers can’t seem to get that egg “bounce” right

They say they don’t have the right “bounce” yet, to make them feel like real eggs, so what will they use for that, gelatin? That would add to the toxicity and DNA damage to human cells, since gelatin comes from CAFO animals’ connective tissue. “We want to take animals out of the equation,” said Josh Tetrick, the firm’s founder. “The food industry is begging for innovation, especially where animals are involved – it is a broken industry.” You can say that again – now throw those eggs in the “trash compactor” with the other medical waste please.

Please realize, this is not a legitimate, healthy vegan alternative to eggs. The bigger questions still remain: Will the GM eggs contain bacteria from insects, or worms, or plants that are never supposed to be eaten? Also, since genetically modified organisms are not required to be labeled in the USA, will GM eggs be HUGE mystery, and could they cause cancer, birth defects or other gene mutations in humans? Don’t turn into a zombie. Don’t consume anything GM. Stay positive and informed. Eat only organic eggs! Don’t eat pesticide vegetables (GMOs) and never ever eat cancer.

Ractopamine and Pigs, Beef, Turkeys and Your Health

Posted on by

Food safety advocates sue FDA over withholding of information about ractopamine growth drug used in meat industry

Posted: November 1, 2013

(http://www.alternet.org)Most Americans have probably never heard of ractopamine, so you may be surprised to learn that it is used in 80 percent of US pig and cattle farming operations. Ractopamine is a growth additive drug, known as a beta-agonist, that is widely banned in other countries, but in the US, it is marketed as Paylean for pigs, Optaflexx for cattle and Topmax for turkeys.

The effects that ractopamine has on animals is already known, but its effects on humans are still a mystery. A European study in which one participant dropped out due to adverse effects found that ” ractopamine causes elevated heart rates and heart-pounding sensations in humans,” the Center for Food Safety (CFS) said. Other studies have shown that the drug causes rapid heart beat, birth defects and enlarged hearts in animals. Countryside magazine has reported cases of pigs being too weak to walk and their hooves falling off after being given ractopamine.

Being understandably concerned with these disturbing reports, the CFS and the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) have requested information “documenting, analyzing, or otherwise discussing the physiological, psychological, and/or behavioral effects” of ractopamine from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA has around 100,000 pages on the drug, but they have refused to produce more than 464 pages that have already been previously released. Distraught over the administration’s illegal withholding and concealment of vital public health and safety information, the CFS and ALDF have decided to sue the FDA over the matter.

Ractopamine is banned in the EU, Russia, China, Taiwan and many other countries that actually care about their citizens’ health. This drug’s continued use closes American meat producers out of those foreign markets and likely puts consumers in danger. Hopefully, the CFS and ALDF will succeed in their fight, and the American justice system will force the FDA to release information about ractopamine, protect consumers and actually do its job instead of idly and flagrantly wasting our tax dollars and our time.

from:    http://buzz.naturalnews.com/001060-ractopamine_growth_drug-meat_industry-Food_and_Drug_Administration.html

Who is Behind the Codex Alimentarius?

Posted on by

Front Groups Exposed—50 Industry Groups Form a New Alliance to Manipulate Public Opinion About Junk Food, GMOs, and Harmful Additives

May 29, 2013

By Dr. Mercola

  • The United Nations established the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 1962. Usually referred to as “Codex,” it consists of approximately 170 member countries that set food guidelines and standards for the world.
  • Over the years, Codex has been embroiled in controversy for a number of reasons, but now our investigations show that Monsanto―one of the world’s largest producers of genetically-modified seeds―is behind a significant number of front groups that control Codex policy.
  • Most recently, more than 50 industry trade groups formed a new alliance called Alliance to Feed the Future. These groups represent multi-national food, biotech, and chemical companies that generate hundreds of billions of dollars-worth of revenue each year
  • Alliance to Feed the Future claims its purpose is to “balance the public dialogue” on modern agriculture and large-scale food production and technology. Or, in other words, they aim to become the go-to source for “real” information about the junk being sold as “food”
  • The Kellen Company is instrumental in creating and managing front groups for the processed food and chemical industries. These front groups are specifically created to mislead you about the product in question, protect industry profits, and influence regulatory agencies

 

If you think it’s tough sorting truth from industry propaganda and lies, get ready for even tougher times ahead. More than 50 front groups, working on behalf of food and biotechnology trade groups―Monsanto being the most prominent―have formed a new coalition called Alliance to Feed the Future.

The alliance, which is being coordinated by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), was created to “balance the public dialogue” on modern agriculture and large-scale food production and technology, i.e. this group will aim to become the go-to source for “real” information about the junk being sold as “food.”

The groups comprising this new alliance represent multi-national food companies, biotech industry, and chemical companies that generate hundreds of billions of dollars worth of revenue from food related sales every year.

On the upside, this alliance and many other industry-sponsored front groups masquerading as non-profits and consumer protection organizations are becoming increasingly exposed for what they really are, and I will point out several of them in this article.

Michele Simon, JD, MPH, policy consultant with Center for Food Safety recently published a report titled: Best Public Relations Money Can Buy: A Guide to Food Industry Front Groups1 also reveals how the food and agricultural industry hide behind friendly-sounding organizations aimed at fooling the public, policymakers and media alike.

Many Industry Front Groups Are Created to Dominate Codex Discussions

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, conceived by the United Nations in 1962, was birthed through a series of relationships between the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Trade Organization (WTO) as well as the American FDA and USDA.

The Codex Alimentarius itself is a compilation of food standards, codes of practice and guidelines that specify all requirements related to foods, whether processed, semi-processed, genetically engineered, or raw.

Its purported purpose is to “protect consumers’ health, ensure fair business practices within the food trade, and eliminate international food trade barriers by standardizing food quality.”

There are a number of different working groups that meet regularly to establish food standards of every imaginable kind. For example, the Physical Working Group on Food Additives recently held meetings in Beijing, China. The 45th session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) ended on March 22.

On the agenda were discussions about aluminum-containing food additives. Are they safe or should they be eliminated from the worldwide Codex standards? The National Health Federation (NHF), the only health-freedom group allowed to speak at the meeting, dished out harsh criticism on the additives, calling for their removal. In a Facebook update, the NHF wrote:2

“The usual Codex suspects (the delegations of Australia, the United States and Canada) plus the trade organizations of the International Food Additives Council (IFAC) and the International Council of Grocery Manufacturers Associations (ICGMA) were the industry apologists for keeping aluminum in food additives.

In dishing out scorching criticism of aluminum’s proponents, NHF came under return fire from Australia, IFAC, and the Chairman.

IFAC – which does not seem to disclose any of its members… along with its sidekick ICGMA, cried out constantly that the ‘Industry’ just could not make it without aluminum food additives. Their members spraying equipment ‘might overheat and catch fire,’ IFAC lamented.

When NHF suggested that this was a not a genuine issue; that the industry could easily innovate its way out of this ‘problem’ and create non-overheating equipment, NHF was criticized by the Chairman for suggesting that IFAC might not be telling the truth.

By the end of the day, the success of the EU and NHF could be tallied by numerous uses of aluminum food additives that the Working Group will suggest be discontinued to the full Committee meeting… although there were also many food-additive uses that stayed in place (albeit usually at reduced levels), no thanks to the interventions of Australia, the U.S., Canada, IFAC, and ICGMA.”

Who’s Behind the International Food Additives Council (IFAC)?

to read more, go to:     http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/29/codex-front-groups.aspx?e_cid=20130529_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130529

Ummm – Chinese Chicken

Posted on by

 

The New Potential Danger Lurking in Supermarket Chicken

Posted by

Processed-Chicken China doesn’t exactly have a stellar track record in regard to , earning a reputation for being one of the world’s worst offenders. In January of 2013, the FDA linked the deaths of more than 500 dogs with chicken jerky treats imported from this country.

And this isn’t an isolated incident, as more horror stories spotlighting China’s unsafe food supply have surfaced in just the past year. These include reports of poisonous fake mutton and sales of 46-year old chicken feet.

All of these recent blunders beg one very important question: Why did the just green light China to export to the U.S.?

Coming soon to a supermarket near you: Chicken products that were processed in China with no U.S. inspector present

Until recently the U.S. had a strict ban on the importation of poultry from China. Now, a recent decision by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to allow four Chinese poultry processors to ship meat to the U.S. is troubling news to those concerned about the safety of imported food – and with good reason. Food safety standards in many other countries fall markedly short of those in the U.S., a reality that has resulted in food contamination and health risks.

At this time China will be permitted to only export cooked products from chickens raised in the U.S. Chickens will be slaughtered in the U.S. or Canada, shipped to China for processing and then shipped back to the States. Sounds totally safe, right? However, critics predict it is only a matter of time before the government expands the rules, allowing products made from China-bred chickens to end up in American supermarkets as well.

Even before these rules are expanded, this decision by the USDA is cause for concern. U.S. inspectors will not be present in the Chinese processing plants to verify that the food products manufactured in fact came from U.S.-slaughtered chickens. Even worse, the USDA won’t mandate point of origin labels on these products since they are assumedly cooked from U.S. chickens. The bottom line is that consumers won’t know if the chicken nuggets they purchase in supermarkets were processed in China or in the U.S.

What Does China Say About the Poor Safety Standards of its Food Supply?

In a July press conference, a senior Chinese official involved in trying to improve food safety standards was asked if and when the country could conform to safety standards of the developed world. He said since China was still in the process of developing, it should base its food safety regulations on “national conditions” rather than on international standards.

So why did the USDA make this decision to allow chicken processed in China into our country? For a long time U.S. beef and poultry producers have tried to lift restrictions in hopes that the Chinese government would reciprocate by lifting its current ban on imports of U.S. beef.

Tom Super, spokesman for the National Chicken Council, which represents big chicken processors in the United States, stated, “We certainly don’t look forward to any more imports, but we also realize free trade is a two-way street. We’re hoping the Chinese will look a little more favorably on our chicken products and on other U.S. agricultural imports.”

Hoping… that makes us feel better.

While this goal should be pursued, it shouldn’t involve sacrificing the safety of our food supply. American consumers are the big losers in the latest USDA policy ruling.

So how can you make sure your chicken was processed in the U.S.?

Search for organic brands that encourage farm-to-fork food. All food sold in the U.S. is required to have a manufacturer’s name and contact. Don’t be afraid to call manufacturers and ask about their food-processing practices.

from:    http://www.liveinthenow.com/article/the-new-potential-danger-lurking-in-supermarket-chicken

Food Irradiation Safety

Posted on by
food

Harmful if swallowed – The dangers of food irradiation

Sunday, September 01, 2013 by: Nate Curtis

(NaturalNews) Food irradiation was implemented to eradicate potentially harmful substances that pose health risks to consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has long ago approved irradiation for products including meats, fruits and vegetables. While eliminating dangerous bacteria sounds like a step in the right direction, the research behind food irradiation is highly flawed.

Irradiation wipes out good bacteria as well as the harmful kinds. Good bacteria found in foods curb the growth of dangerous bacteria and produce an odor that indicates spoilage. There is also a chance that the bacteria that survive the irradiation process can mutate and become radiation-resistant, which would make the entire process ineffective and potentially lead to the formation of bacteria that is also resistant to antibiotics.

“Radiation is a carcinogen, mutagen and teratogen,” Dr. Geraldine Dettman, a Brown University safety officer, points out. “At doses of 100,000 rads on fruits and vegetables, the cells of the fruits and vegetables will be killed, and most insect larvae will be destroyed, but fungi, bacteria and viruses growing on the fruit and vegetables will not be killed . . . They will be mutated, possibly leading to more virulent contaminants.”

It alters the content of food

The nutritional content of irradiated foods is seriously compromised. Irradiation can destroy between 5 percent and 80 percent of vitamins and nutrients found in a variety of foods including essential vitamins A, B complex, C, E, and K. For example, irradiated eggs lose 80 percent of vitamin A and orange juice loses 48 percent of beta-carotene.

Irradiation not only reduces the food’s nutritional content, but also changes its flavor, texture and odor. For example, turkey and pork can become bright red while beef can turn from red into a shade of green or brown. Numerous studies show that irradiated foods are inferior in taste, texture, and smell to non-irradiated foods.

It has not been proven to be safe

Scientific studies that were used to legalize irradiation used old scientific methods and were not extensive. In fact, the study of how irradiated foods affect the human body lasted for only 15 weeks before it was discontinued and irradiated foods were deemed safe for human consumption. There is no research available to determine the long-term effects of eating irradiated foods. Furthermore the research used to approve irradiation did not fulfill current scientific protocols required by federal law.

Dr. Gayle Eversole states, “Food irradiation exposes food to the equivalent of 30 million chest X-rays. Irradiation creates new chemicals in foods called radiolytic products. Some of these products are known cancer-causing substances….No one knows the long term impact of eating unknown quantities of these damaged foods. Studies on animals fed irradiated foods have shown increased tumors, reproductive failures and kidney damage. Chromosomal abnormalities occurred in children from India who were fed freshly irradiated wheat.”

Irradiation is ineffective

Irradiation kills the majority of bacteria that cause food borne illnesses but does not eradicate other waste that can contaminate meat and other foods due to unsanitary conditions in slaughterhouses and processing plants. It does not eliminate contaminants such as urine, feces and vomit. It also doesn’t destroy the virus that causes Mad Cow disease.

Being aware of the dangers of food irradiation will help you avoid foods that can be potentially harmful to your body. Irradiated foods are required to be labeled with a symbol resembling an encircled leafy plant. Remember to always double check the food you buy, question its origins and read the labels carefully.

EPA Raises Levels of Glyphosate in Food

Posted on by

EPA to American People: ‘Let Them Eat Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Cake’

EPA30th July 2013

By Sayer Ji

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

The EPA, whose mission is to “to protect human health and the environment,” has approved Monsanto’s request to allow levels of glyphosate (Roundup) contamination in your food up to a million times higher than have been found carcinogenic.

If you haven’t already heard, it’s now official. Monsanto’s request to have the EPA raise allowable levels of its herbicide glyphosate in food you may soon be eating has been approved [see Final Rule]. Public commenting is also now closed, not that it was anything but a formality to begin with.

Here is the original registration application, lest detractors claim it was not Monsanto behind this bold move to legalize what an increasingly educated public considers a form of institutionalized mass poisoning:

1. EPA Registration Numbers: 524-421, 524-475, and 524-537. Docket ID Number:EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132. Applicant: Monsanto Company, 1300 I Street NW., Suite 450 East, Washington, DC 20005. Active ingredient: Glyphosate. Product Type:Herbicide. Proposed Uses: Add wiper applicator use over the top to carrot and sweet potato, add preharvest use to oilseed crop group 20, add the use Teff (forage and hay), and conversion of the following old crop groups to the following new crop groups: Vegetable, bulb, group 3 to vegetable, bulb, group 3-07; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 to vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10; fruit, citrus, group 10 to fruit, citrus, group 10-10; fruit, pome, group 11 to fruit, pome, group 11-10; and berry group 13 to berry and small fruit, group 13-07. Contact: Erik Kraft, (703) 308-9358, email address: kraft.erik@epa.gov. [emphasis added]

Notice above, the proposal includes “Add wiper applicator use over the top to carrot and sweet potato,” revealing that one reason why Monsanto wants tolerances on glyphosate raised is because this chemical will be applied directly not just to Roundup Ready plants but to non-GMO crops as well, virtually guaranteeing that unless you eat 100% USDA organic concentrations of grave concern will end up in your food and body.

How grave? The Food Poisoning Bulletin describes the new tolerances as follows:

Under the new regulation, forage and hay teff can contain up to 100 ppm (100,000 ppb) glyphosate; oilseed crops can contain up to 40 ppm (40,000 ppb) glyphosate, and root crops such as potatoes and beets can contain 6000 ppb glyphosate. Fruits can have concentrations from 200 ppb to 500 ppb glyphosate. These numbers are magnitudes higher than the levels some scientists believe are carcinogenic.[emphasis added]

Indeed, only last month, a new study found that glyphosate has ‘xenoestrogen‘ properties and stimulated breast cancer proliferation in the parts per trillion range – that would be six orders of magnitude lower levels than presently receiving the EPA’s Monsanto-friendly stamp of approval. So how does the EPA address the potential for carcinogenicity in section 3 of their Exposure Assessment? They state their position as follows:

EPA has concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

According to this ruthless logic, since the EPA designates itself a higher authority than the independent scientific evidence clearly signaling glyphosate’s carcinogenicity (view the toxicological data yourself here), it requires no safety testing. Let the exposed populations eat Roundup Ready cake and fester in an epidemic of cancers, as it turns a self-blinded eye to the problem.

The EPA has just made such a mockery of its own mission statement, which is “to protect human health and the environment,” that one wonders why they have not already declared themselves a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto.

The obvious reason why Monsanto and its ‘EPA cheerleading division’ successfully raised the tolerances of glyphosate in your food, is because the contamination is getting so bad they had no other choice. Either limits are raised, or Monsanto breaks the law (by contaminating our food and poisoning us beyond the “acceptable level of harm” already determined by the EPA) and the EPA is shown to be completely impotent to enforce anything resembling its mission statement.

But despite Monsanto’s latest apparent success, a growing grassroots movement comprised of millions of concerned citizens is defiantly expressing their own form of “glyphosate-resistance,” armed with a growing body of published toxicological data linking the glyphosate herbicide to over 30 health problems. This movement is mirrored poetically by the “super weeds” emerging throughout the Roundup Ready monocultured farmland of the world. In both cases, the center of real power is shifting away from Monsanto back to the people who are realizing that unless they retake back control over their food, they will be coerced and poisoned into a form of biological slavery the likes of which this world has never seen before, and if it manifests fully, will likely never recover from.

Learn more at our research page on GMOs: Health Guide: GMO Research

from:     http://wakeup-world.com/2013/07/30/epa-to-american-people-let-them-eat-monsantos-roundup-ready-cake/

Foods Banned in Other Countires, Not USA

Posted on by

10 American Foods That Are Banned in Other Countries

By Dr. Mercola

Americans are slowly waking up to the sad fact that much of the food sold in the US is far inferior to the same foods sold in other nations. In fact, many of the foods you eat are BANNED in other countries.

Here, I’ll review 10 American foods that are banned elsewhere, which were featured in a recent MSN article.1

Seeing how the overall health of Americans is so much lower than other industrialized countries, you can’t help but wonder whether toxic foods such as these might play a role in our skyrocketing disease rates.

Story at-a-glance

  • Many foods sold in the US are banned in other countries due to harmful additives, growth promoters, genetically engineered ingredients or other dangerous practices
  • This includes farm-raised salmon, Hawaiian (GMO) papaya, artificial food dyes, arsenic-laced chicken, ractopamine-tainted meat, bromate-containing drinks and bread, olestra, carcinogenic preservatives, and rBGH-laced milk
  • To avoid potentially hazardous foods and harmful ingredients permitted in the US food supply, ditching processed foods entirely is your best option
  • Also swap out your regular meat sources to organic, grass-fed/pasture-raised versions of beef and poultry. The same goes for dairy products and animal by-products such as eggs.

to read the whole articles, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/10/banned-foods.aspx?e_cid=20130710_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130710

Know What You Are Eating

Posted on by
Michael F. Jacobson

Executive Director, Center for Science in the Public Interest

Ending Food Ignorance: Education Is Too Important to Leave to Big Food

Would you be surprised to know that there is a highly-sophisticated, multi-billion-dollar campaign underway designed to teach your children about food? There is. In fact, experts agree that this campaign is wildly successful. Unfortunately, the massive instructional campaign to which I refer is the $2 billion effort by the food industry to teach children and teens to want candy, sugar drinks, sugary cereals, and other highly-processed junk foods. Mostly, these lessons are delivered through your television set. Increasingly though, these messages reach kids through mobile devices, so-called “advergames” on the web, and shockingly, even junk-food marketing within the four walls of their classrooms.

When one-third of American kids are overweight or obese, and are on track to have shorter lives than their parents, it’s clear that food education is too important to leave to Big Food. That’s why Jamie Oliver’s Food Foundation and the organizers behind Food Day (Oct. 24) are collaborating on a new national initiative to put food education in every school.

Parents would be outraged if their children in elementary school didn’t learn that two plus two is four, or couldn’t identify the Niña, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria. Yet, as Oliver demonstrated in 2010, some American school kids cannot identify tomatoes, beets, or cauliflower, or might mistake an eggplant for a pear! Yet thanks to Big Food’s marketing muscle, junk food brands like McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, and Chuck E. Cheese’s are as firmly implanted in kids’ developing brains as the names of the three ships that sailed the ocean blue in 1492.

The anti-hunger group Feeding America estimates that elementary school students receive just 3.4 hours of nutrition education — actual education and not marketing — each year. Fewer than 25 percent of high school students take any family and consumer science classes, formerly known as home economics, and those classes are often the first to go when school budgets are trimmed. And parents have to shoulder some of the blame, when, in all too many harried households, “cooking” actually means “microwaving” or otherwise heating some well-preserved, factory-extruded, combination of flour, fat, salt, sugar, dyes, and other chemicals.

But just as we expect our schools to do the heavy lifting when it comes to teaching geography, algebra, physical education, and history, we should expect schools to teach children about food — where it comes from and how it affects our bodies and our health. Where it’s been done well, we know it works. First of all, most kids find that cooking is fun. The more children cook and prepare fresh recipes from scratch, the more likely they are to appreciate healthier and varied ingredients and develop a skill that will serve them well throughout their lives. The more children learn about food and nutrition, the more likely they are to eat fruits, vegetables, and other healthful foods. And the real-world experience of Alice Waters’ edible schoolyards show that the more that children plant and harvest fresh fruits and vegetables, they more motivated they’ll be to eat them.

We call on policymakers at all levels of government, starting with local school boards, mayors, and governors and then on up to members of Congress and to the famous nutrition advocates living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, to put food education back in every school. We can’t raise another generation of kids that can’t tell tomatoes from potatoes, or for whom cooking means pressing the “start” button on the microwave. Let’s make sure every kid advances to the next grade with a handful of age-appropriate recipes under their belt, with some healthful sandwiches and salads learned in elementary school, more advanced soups and pastas in middle school, and healthy and wholesome entrees in high school. Let’s envision the financial windfall taxpayers should reap when we begin to make a serious dent in rates of childhood overweight and obesity. And let’s put food education back in schools because we value our children and their prospects for long, healthy, and happy lives.

It will be many years, if ever, before America’s real food educators have the same financial resources as America’s junk-food manufacturers. But we shouldn’t leave the critical task of teaching nutrition to the food industry any more than we’d leave teaching science to the Flat Earth Society.

For more by Michael F. Jacobson, click here.

from:    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/food-education_b_3552273.html

COncerned About Food Safety? Check This Out

Posted on by

Secret Trade Agreements Threaten Food Safety, Force GMO imports

by  • 

ttip gmoBy Katherine Paul and Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association

If you think the U.S. government is doing a sub-par job of keeping your food safe, brace yourself. You could soon be eating imported seafood, beef or chicken products that don’t meet even basic U.S. food safety standards. Under two new trade agreements, currently in negotiation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could be powerless to shut down imports of unsafe food or food ingredients. And if it tries, multinational corporations will be able to sue the U.S. government for the loss of anticipated future profits.

More frightening? Negotiations for both agreements are taking place behind closed doors, with input allowed almost exclusively from the corporations and industry trade groups that stand to benefit the most. And the Obama Administration intends to push the agreements through Congress without so much as giving lawmakers access to draft texts, much less the opportunity for debate.

Designed to grease the wheels of world commerce, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would force the U.S. and other participating countries to “harmonize” food safety standards. That means all countries that sign on to the agreement would be required to abide by the lowest common denominator standards of all participating governments. So for instance, say Vietnam allows higher residues of veterinary antibiotics in seafood than the U.S. allows, and Vietnam and the U.S. both sign on to the TPP. As a trade partner, the U.S. could be forced to lower its standards to allow for imports of seafood from Vietnam – or face a lawsuit by the seafood exporter for depriving the company of future sales of its products in the U.S.

The U.S. has already had a taste of this type of policy under the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA). In 2005, the Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade sued the U.S. the U.S. government for banning imports of beef and live Canadian cattle after a case of mad cow disease was discovered in Canada. In the end, the U.S. prevailed, but not until it had spent millions to defend itself in court. Mexico wasn’t so fortunate when three companies (Corn Products International, ADM/Tate & Lyle and Cargill) sued the Mexican government for preventing imports of high fructose corn syrup. Mexico lost all three cases, and was forced to pay out a total of $169.18 million to the three firms.

Among the many gifts to Big Ag contained in the TTIP and TPP?  Back-door entry for their genetically modified seeds and crops. Countries, including those in the European Union, could find it increasingly difficult to ban, or even require the labeling of, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), if biotech companies determine that those countries’ strict policies restrict fair trade and infringe on the companies’ “rights” to profit.

The TTIP and the TPP are, individually and combined, two of the largest free trade agreements in world history. According to the Citizens Trade Campaign (CTC) the TPP alone covers 40 percent of the global economy. That percentage will likely grow, because the agreement allows for other countries, besides the 12 currently involved, to “dock on” after the agreement is in place.

Both the TTIP and TPP could have dangerous consequences for food safety in the U.S., and around the world. But they’re not limited to food or agriculture policy. Both also contain sweeping policies that could affect everything from the environment and sustainability, to healthcare, Internet freedom and the financial markets. Given the potential of these agreements to shape global policy on so many fronts, it’s reasonable to assume that negotiators would actively solicit, and take into careful consideration, input from the affected parties, including consumers, farmers and governments. Instead they’ve taken the opposite approach. From day one, negotiations for the TTIP and TPP have been shrouded in secrecy. The public and participating governments, including the U.S. Congress, have been shut out of the negotiating process, denied access to everything from early proposals to final draft texts.

Why the secrecy? The Obama Administration wants as little public debate as possible, so it can ram the agreements through Congress using something called “Fast Track.” Fast Track, a product of the Nixon presidency, strips Congress of its authority to control the content of a trade deal and hands that authority over to the executive branch. Congress gets a vote, but only after the negotiations have been completed, and the agreements have been signed. No debate. No amendments. Just a fast, forced vote, too late for Congress to have any influence.

According to the CTC, two-thirds of Democratic freshmen in the U.S. House of Representatives have expressed serious reservations about the TPP negotiations and the prospect of giving Fast Track authority to the President. And more than 400 organizations representing 15 million Americans have already petitioned Congress to do away with Fast Track in favor of a more democratic approach to trade agreement negotiations. So far those pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

If the public is shut out, and Congress gets no say, who gets a seat at the table? Corporations. That’s right. The Obama Administration is trusting corporations like Dow AgroSciences, Cargill and DuPont, and trade groups like the Pork Producers Council and Tobacco Associates, Inc., to write food safety policies. In all, more than 600 corporations have been given access to drafts of various chapters of the TPP. Requests for the same level of access, from members of Congress and from the public, have been denied.

No wonder then that, according to leaked drafts obtained by groups like the CTC, Public Citizen and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), the TPP contains proposals designed to give transnational corporations “special rights” that go far beyond those possessed by domestic businesses and American citizens, says Arthur Stamoulis, executive director of the CTC. Experts who have reviewed the leaked texts say that TPP negotiators propose allowing transnational corporations to challenge countries’ laws, regulations and court decisions, including environmental and food safety laws. Corporations will be allowed to resolve trade disputes in special international tribunals. In other words, they get to do an end run around the countries’ domestic judicial systems, effectively wiping out hundreds, if not more, domestic and international food sovereignty laws.

U.S. consumers aren’t the only ones who should be up in arms about these trade agreements, the secrecy around their negotiations, and the Obama Administration’s intent to fast-track them. Under the TTIP and TPP, consumers in countries that have stricter food safety regulations than those in the U.S. will see their standards lowered, too. For instance, Japan prohibits the use of peracetic acid to sterilize vegetables, fruits and meat, while the U.S., Canada and Australia allow it. Japan’s health ministry, in anticipation of the TPP, has said the country will add the acid to its approved list. In all, Japan has approved only about 800 food additives, to the more than 3,000 approved in the U.S. Japan’s consumers could soon see a sudden reversal of laws enacted to protect their health.

European consumers will also suffer. Europe has long used the precautionary principle to ban ractopamine in meat, chlorine rinses of poultry and the use of rBGH growth hormone in milk production. Under the TTIP, Europe could be forced to allow all three in order to meet the lowest common denominator rule. The precautionary principle removes the burden of proof from policymakers, allowing them to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm, given the lack of scientific proof to the contrary. But that principle flies out the window under TTIP rules.

The Organic Consumers Association is urging consumers to petition President Obama and Interim U.S. Trade Representative Miriam Sapiro to release the draft texts of the TTIP and TPP, and encourage full and open debate on the policies contained in both agreements. The petition also asks President Obama to end the Fast Track option, and grant Congress the ability to debate and amend the agreements, before voting on them.

With the world’s food supply, and consumers’ health, already endangered by chemical-intensive industrial agriculture and climate change, the U.S. and other governments should be looking for ways to promote sustainable food and agriculture policies, not restrict governments’ abilities to do so. Instead, the Obama Administration is subverting the principles of democracy in favor of handing a few transnational corporations unprecedented power to put profits above the health and well being of consumers.

Katherine Paul is Director of Communications and Development for the Organic Consumers Association.
Ronnie Cummins is National Director of the Organic Consumers Association.

from:    http://foodfreedomgroup.com/2013/06/13/secret-trade-agreements-threaten-food-safety-force-gmo-imports/

GM Foods, Animals, & Safety

Posted on by

Study Shows Animals Are Seriously Harmed By Eating GM Crops

Posted: June 12th, 2013

Researchers with Genetically Modified Corn

A ground-breaking study, published today, June 12, 2013 (1), shows that animals are harmed by the consumption of feed containing genetically modified (GM) crops.

The research results were striking, showing that the weight of the uterus in GM-fed pigs was on average 25% higher than in the control group of pigs. The finding was biologically and statistically significant. Also, the level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs fed on the GM diet. These animals were 2.6 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation than control pigs. While 22% of male pigs and 42% of female pigs on the GM diet had this condition, when these pigs were compared to pigs on the control diet, it was found that male pigs were actually more strongly affected. While female pigs were 2.2 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation when on the GM diet, males were 4 times more likely. These findings are both biologically significant and statistically significant.

The research was conducted by collaborating investigators from two continents and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Organic Systems. The feeding study lasted more than five months and was conducted in the US. 168 newly-weaned pigs in a commercial piggery were fed either a typical diet incorporating GM soy and corn (2), or else (in the control group) an equivalent non-GM diet. The pigs were reared under identical housing and feeding conditions. They were slaughtered over 5 months later, at their usual slaughter age, after eating the diets for their entire commercial lifespan. They were then autopsied by qualified veterinarians who worked “blind” – they were not informed which pigs were fed on the GM diet and which were from the control group.

The research was undertaken because farmers have for some years been reporting reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed on a diet containing GM soy and corn (3). Farmers have seen a reduced ability to conceive and higher rates of miscarriage in piggeries where sows have been fed on a GM diet, and a reduction in the number of piglets born if boars were used for conception rather than artificial insemination. There is also evidence of a higher rates of intestinal problems in pigs fed a GM diet, including inflammation of the stomach and small intestine, stomach ulcers, a thinning of intestinal walls and an increase in haemorrhagic bowel disease, where a pig can rapidly “bleed-out” from its bowel and die.

Much of the previously anecdotal evidence from within the pig-farming industry is now confirmed by this new study, linking the symptoms observed by farmers and veterinarians with obvious and statistically significant physiological damage in pigs at the age of slaughter.

Farmer and livestock advisor Howard Vlieger, one of the initiators and coordinators of the study, was not surprised by the results documented by the veterinarians. He said: “For as long as GM crops have been in the feed supply, we have seen increasing digestive and reproductive problems in animals. Now it is scientifically documented. In my experience, farmers have experienced increased production costs and have seen escalating antibiotic use when feeding GM crops. In some operations, the livestock death loss is high, and there are unexplained problems including spontaneous abortions, deformities of newborn animals, and an overall listlessness and lack of contentment in the animals. In some cases, animals eating GM crops are very aggressive. This is not surprising, given the scale of stomach irritation and inflammation now documented. In short, I have seen no financial benefit to farmers who feed GM crops to their animals.”

Lead researcher Dr Judy Carman (4) said: “Our findings are of huge significance for several reasons. First, we have found these results using real-world conditions that don’t occur in a laboratory. Second, we have used pigs. Pigs with these health problems end up in our food supply. We eat them. Also, pigs have a very similar digestive system to people, so we need to investigate if people are getting similar digestive problems from eating GM crops. Third, we found these adverse effects when we fed the animals a mixture of crops containing three GM genes and the GM proteins that these genes produce. That is, we observed the combined effects of these GM proteins on health. These proteins may be acting synergistically to cause these effects. Yet no food regulator requires a safety assessment for synergistic effects. Regulators simply assume that they can’t happen. Our results provide clear evidence that regulators need to safety assess GM crops containing mixtures of GM genes, regardless of whether those genes occur in the one GM plant or in a mixture of GM plants eaten in the same meal, even if regulators have already assessed GM plants containing single GM genes in the mixture.”

from:    http://topinfopost.com/2013/06/12/study-shows-animals-are-seriously-harmed-by-eating-gm-crops