Food Safety // Current TV

GMO food project: We need to know what we're eating!

Today in the United States, by the simple act of feeding ourselves, we unwittingly... more

JanforGore
added this
8 months ago
|
1 comment

Keep pesticide ridden corn off your dinner plate

Surveys over the past decade have consistently shown that Americans don’t want to eat genetically engineered (GE or GMO) food. Despite the overwhelming opposition to this risky new food technology, the biotech giant Monsanto continues to impose its unlabeled GMO’s onto our dinner plates.

The latest: Monsanto’s new GMO corn, intended for the frozen and/or canned corn market. This experimental corn will not be labeled, so consumers cannot know when they may be eating a GMO food that contains a toxic pesticide in every bite. Monsanto’s corn is a new GMO variety that has been genetically modified for three different traits, to resist two different insects and to withstand heavy spraying with Monsanto's toxic Roundup herbicide. Because there are already varieties of other insect-resistant and Roundup-Ready varieties on the market, federal regulators are not requiring ANY approval process—which means NO public comment on its introduction into our food supply.

CFS has teamed up with the Center for Environmental Health to urge major companies that make frozen and/or canned corn to take action to avoid Monsanto’s new crop. We need tell Del Monte, Bird’s Eye and other major food makers to reject this new GMO corn. General Mills (Green Giant, Cascadian Farms) and Trader Joe’s have already indicated that they will not use Monsanto’s new GMO sweet corn in their products—so can the other top companies!

Take action today! Send food makers a message that we don’t want Monsanto’s food experiments!

Targets:

Neil Harrison, Del Monte (Del Monte, S&W)
Robert J. Gamgort, Pinnacle Foods/Bird's Eye
Roderick L. Allen, Allen's Inc. (Veg-all, Allen's, SteamSupreme, Freshlike, Freshlike Selects)
Kraig H. Kayser, President & CEO, Seneca Foods (Libby's, Aunt Nelly's, Read, Stokely's, Festal, private label brands)
Steven A. Burd, President & CEO, Safeway
David B. Dillon, Kroger
Michael T. Duke, Walmart
Craig R. Herkert- President, CEO, & Director, Supervalu
John P. Mackey, Co-CEO & Director, Whole Foods
Gregg Steinhafel, Chairman, President and CEO, Target (Archer Farms, Market Pantry)

https://secure3.convio.net/cfs/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=385&JServSessionIdr004=s9a7fa67h3.app306a
PetitionSurveys over the past decade have consistently shown that Americans don’t want... more

JanforGore
added this
8 months ago
|
4 comments

Cantaloupe Deaths: Several Dead From Eating Tainted Cantaloupe Linked To Colorado

By MARY CLARE JALONICK 09/19/11 06:49 PM ET WASHINGTON -- Four people have... more

Buckeye_Bill
added this
8 months ago
|
76 comments

Glyphosate (Monsanto's Round Up) commonly found in rain and streams- USGS

EXTRACT: "Though glyphosate is the mostly widely used herbicide in the world, we... more

JanforGore
added this
9 months ago
|
6 comments

Cargill Meat Recall Threatens Public Health - Democracy NOW!

Democracy NOW! DN! - In one of the largest meat recalls in U.S. history, this week the... more

treewolf39
added this
10 months ago
|
5 comments

"Top Dem Uses Salmonella Outbreak To Hammer GOP Over Food-Safety Cuts"

HELLO ! Why aren't WE hammering all of congress over the numerous poisoned and... more

COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
added this
10 months ago
|
0 comments

Crops absorb more toxic cadmium as carbon dioxide builds

As human activity sends ever more carbon dioxide into the air, plants may grow faster... more

JanforGore
added this
10 months ago
|
20 comments

Radioactive Meat Circulating in Japanese Market

Radioactive meat circulating on Japanese market By Nicholas Ito, CNN July 12, 2011... more

EthicalVegan
added this
11 months ago
|
13 comments

An apple a day keeps the doctor away? Not any more...

Poison apples bad for consumers, Snow White Every year, the Environmental Working... more

Vierotchka
added this
12 months ago
|
0 comments

Forensic evidence emerges that European e.coli superbug was bioengineered to produce human fatalities

(NaturalNews) Even as the veggie blame game is now under way across the EU, where a... more

Jennifer_Guinn
added this
12 months ago
|
1 comment

Court of Appeals Dismisses Monsanto’s Appeal of Biotech Beets Case, Preserves Victory for Farmers, Environment

We must stop Monsanto from taking over the worlds food markets through genetically... more

ghewittofa
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

Meat glue - Today Tonight

Is a steak really a steak? http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/8989315

haydemon
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

Labelling GMOs: It's up to us

At this site you will find action items and ways you can get involved with getting GMO... more

JanforGore
added this
1 year ago
|
48 comments

Why being a foodie isn't "elitist"

At the American Farm Bureau Federation’s annual meeting this year, Bob Stallman, the group’s president, lashed out at “self-appointed food elitists” who are “hell-bent on misleading consumers.” His target was the growing movement that calls for sustainable farming practices and questions the basic tenets of large-scale industrial agriculture in America.

The “elitist” epithet is a familiar line of attack. In the decade since my book “Fast Food Nation” was published, I’ve been called not only an elitist, but also a socialist, a communist and un-American. In 2009, the documentary “Food, Inc.,” directed by Robby Kenner, was described as “elitist foodie propaganda” by a prominent corporate lobbyist. Nutritionist Marion Nestle has been called a “food fascist,” while an attempt was recently made to cancel a university appearance by Michael Pollan, author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” who was accused of being an “anti-agricultural” elitist by a wealthy donor.

This name-calling is a form of misdirection, an attempt to evade a serious debate about U.S. agricultural policies. And it gets the elitism charge precisely backward. America’s current system of food production — overly centralized and industrialized, overly controlled by a handful of companies, overly reliant on monocultures, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, chemical additives, genetically modified organisms, factory farms, government subsidies and fossil fuels — is profoundly undemocratic. It is one more sign of how the few now rule the many. And it’s inflicting tremendous harm on American farmers, workers and consumers.

During the past 40 years, our food system has changed more than in the previous 40,000 years. Genetically modified corn and soybeans, cloned animals, McNuggets — none of these technological marvels existed in 1970. The concentrated economic power now prevalent in U.S. agriculture didn’t exist, either. For example, in 1970 the four largest meatpacking companies slaughtered about 21 percent of America’s cattle; today the four largest companies slaughter about 85 percent. The beef industry is more concentrated now than it was in 1906, when Upton Sinclair published “The Jungle” and criticized the unchecked power of the “Beef Trust.” The markets for pork, poultry, grain, farm chemicals and seeds have also become highly concentrated.

America’s ranchers and farmers are suffering from this lack of competition for their goods. In 1970, farmers received about 32 cents for every consumer dollar spent on food; today they get about 16 cents. The average farm household now earns about 87 percent of its income from non-farm sources.

While small farmers and their families have been forced to take second jobs just to stay on their land, wealthy farmers have received substantial help from the federal government. Between 1995 and 2009, about $250 billion in federal subsidies was given directly to American farmers — and about three-quarters of that money was given to the wealthiest 10 percent. Those are the farmers whom the Farm Bureau represents, the ones attacking “big government” and calling the sustainability movement elitist.

cont.At the American Farm Bureau Federation’s annual meeting this year, Bob Stallman,... more

JanforGore
added this
1 year ago
|
16 comments

The Health Dangers of Table Salt

Salt is a wonderful thing. Whether from the far reaches of the Himalayan rock... more

riverratt50
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

High radiation level found in fish near Japan nuclear plant

Japanese authorities said Tuesday they had discovered for the first time fish swimming off the country's Pacific coast carrying high levels of radioactive materials. The finding, the latest blow from the nuclear crisis, is stoking concerns about environmental damage to local marine life, the safety of the nation's food supply, and the viability of Japan's iconic seafood industry, which was already struggling following the tsunami.

The two separate samples of tiny fish were caught before Tokyo Electric Power Co., the operator of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi reactors, began the process Monday night of dumping 11,500 tons of contaminated water into the sea, raising fears that the problem could spread significantly in coming days. Tepco has said that, before the authorized unloading of water, there was an uncontrolled leak of an uncertain quantity of highly radioactive water from the reactors into the sea.

Efforts to end the release of more highly radioactive water at the Fukushima Daiichi plant finally met with some success Tuesday, Tepco said, as the injection of what it called "liquid glass" gel around a damaged pipe managed to reduce the toxic flow by half. Workers poured 3,000 liters, or 780 gallons, of gel-like sodium silicate onto the rocks supporting the pipe. Authorities said the substance would continue to harden over time and could continue to slow the flow of water.

Workers have tried a variety of methods to reduce the flow since it was discovered Saturday. The water is thought to be from the highly damaged No. 2 reactor. A water sample taken just outside the water intake for the No. 2 unit showed the level of radioactive iodine-131 at 7.5 million times the allowable limit, the most dangerous level of radiation so far detected.

Separately, South Korea said Tuesday it would seek more information from Japan's Foreign Ministry about the decision to allow Tepco to dump the 11,500 tons of low-level radioactive water into the ocean. The water is being discharged to free up storage space for much more toxic water. "We regret having caused concern to other countries because of the discharge of the radioactive water," said Hidehiko Nishiyama, deputy director general of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, the industry regulator. "We will try to avoid further dumping of contaminated water as much as possible."

Officials from Tepco and the agency have said repeatedly that the level of radiation that has seeped into the sea over the past two weeks—while measured at highly elevated levels right near the plant—posed no major immediate threat to humans or to the environment, because the water disperses quickly into the vast ocean. But the contaminated fish were caught about 50 miles south of the reactors, well beyond the 12.5-mile evacuation perimeter.

One sample of konago caught Friday contained twice the permissible level of radioactive iodine-131, which has a half-life of eight days and which can accumulate in the thyroid in humans, possibly raising the risk of thyroid cancer. The other konago sample, caught Monday, had just over the permissible limit for cesium, an element with an uncertain impact on human health. Three different types of cesium were discovered, one of which has a half-life of 30 years.

While the local government near the location where the fish were caught said it would suspend fishing of the particular species contaminated, national government officials said no broader fishing ban was contemplated. "It will be necessary to monitor various parts of the sea, and also to consult marine ecology experts," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano at a news conference Tuesday.

The reports of contaminated fish have followed reports of tainted produce including spinach and broccoli, as well as raw milk, in Fukushima prefecture and other areas close to the reactors. The reports of contaminated seafood are potentially more worrisome, because the contaminated seawater, and the fish, move in uncontrollable and untraceable paths.

It isn't clear how extensively the contamination will spread, but fears of radioactive Japanese fish, both at home and abroad, threaten to further hurt an industry already weakened by the tsunami, which wiped out a number of fishing villages along Japan's northeastern coast. Even as the country has industrialized, the fishing industry has remained integral to its image, with a fishing community dotting Japan's shores every 3.5 miles, according to a 2009 agriculture ministry white paper. Just under half Japan's roughly $3 billion in annual food exports comes from seafood in raw or processed forms.

contJapanese authorities said Tuesday they had discovered for the first time fish swimming... more

JanforGore
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

Mobile technology connects sustainability-conscious consumers with local growers

By downloading ShopSavvy, a free smartphone application, consumers can scan the GS1... more

TOP10PRODUCELLC
added this
1 year ago
|
3 comments

Low Levels of Radiation Found in U.S. Milk

Low Levels of Radiation Found in American Milk

By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: March 30, 2011

Tests of milk samples taken last week in Spokane, Wash., indicate the presence of radioactive iodine from the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan, but at levels far below those at which action would have to be taken, the Environmental Protection Agency said on Wednesday.

Radioactive materials in liquids are measured in pico-curies per liter, and the sample, taken on March 25, showed a reading of 0.8 pico-curies, the agency said. It said those numbers would have to be 5,000 times higher to reach the “intervention level” set by the Food and Drug Administration.

“These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are far below levels of public health concern, including for infants and children,” the E.P.A. said.

Levels of iodine 131 entering the air can be very diluted, but if deposited on grass eaten by cows, the cows will re-concentrate it in their milk by a factor of 1,000. This is mainly a concern with fresh milk, not for dairy products that are stored before consumption.

Iodine 131 has a half-life of eight days, meaning that every eight days it loses half its strength; since production of iodine 131 stopped when the Fukushima reactors shut down on March 11, it has already been through two half-lives and could easily be halved once or twice more again before the milk was consumed as cheese or yogurt.

Iodine 131 emits beta particles, which resemble electrons. They are not considered a major hazard outside the human body, although in large doses, they can damage the cornea of the eye.

The problem arises when materials that emit those particles are ingested or inhaled. Iodine 131 is chemically identical to normal, nonradioactive iodine and thus is absorbed into the body just as normal iodine is, mainly in the thyroid gland, where it delivers a concentrated dose to that small organ and can cause cancer.

In the Chernobyl nuclear accident of 1986, the biggest health effect was to cause thyroid cancer, especially in children living near the nuclear plant.Low Levels of Radiation Found in American Milk By MATTHEW L. WALD Published: March... more

EthicalVegan
added this
1 year ago
|
15 comments

Join Millions Against Monsanto This Saturday, March 26th

Monsanto is at the core of a rotten corporate GM apple that is literally poisoning the... more

riverratt50
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

GMOS: Substantial equivalence: anything but substantial or equivalent

Substantial equivalence. When looking at these two words many come away with the impression that they signify fairness, safety and adequate disclosure to consumers regarding the products those words are attached to. However, regarding the marketing of transgenic foods specifically genetically modified organisms in our food that is anything but the case. I think it is crucial that consumers are aware of what is in their food and how it may affect them and their children in order for them to be able to make informed decisions about what goes into their bodies. This knowledge is essential as a preventative measure to maintaining health and also regarding informing consumers about any other effects what they buy may have on the enviroment. Therefore, in discussing substantial equivalence in regards to GMOs and the underlayer of collusion involved in pushing them into the world I think it important to begin at the beginning.

This is the standard definition of "substantial equivalence":

"Substantial equivalence is a concept developed by OECD in 1991 that maintains that a novel food should be considered the same as a conventional food if it demonstrates the same characteristics and composition as the conventional food."

This concept was pushed in regards to GMOs by the FAO and the WHO in the early 1990s. Its intent was the stripping away of years of testing of so called "novel" foods which can be prohibitively expensive and time consuming and therefore would have affected the profits of companies like Monsanto that have a virtual stranglehold on the FDA, USDA, and other regulatory agencies and governments that have afforded them special treatment in allowing them to use this planet and its species as one huge science experiment. The residual effects of applying these two words to GMOs and in allowing them to be foisted upon the world with little to no adequate testing already negates the validity of applying the substantial equivalence label to them.
____
This is from a paper written in 1997:

John Fagan, Ph.D., Professor of Molecular Biology, Maharishi University of Management

"The concept of substantial equivalence has been used in Europe, North America, and elsewhere around the world as the basis of regulations designed to facilitate the rapid commercialization of genetically engineered foods. For instance, European Commission (EC) regulations concerning novel foods and food ingredients apply the concept of substantial equivalence to both the safety testing and to the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Genetically engineered foods classified as substantially equivalent are spared from extensive safety testing on the assumption that they are no more dangerous than the corresponding non-genetically engineered food (1). Using similar arguments, genetically engineered foods classified as substantially equivalent are not required to be labeled as genetically engineered (2). The effect of these regulations has been to allow genetically engineered foods to enter the market place without sufficient testing to assure safety and without sufficient labeling to allow consumers to de cide for themselves whether or not to purchase and eat these novel foods. The health of the population of Europe is thus being placed at risk.

The fundamental inadequacies of this approach have been discussed previously. For instance, one article presented in the Proceedings of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Workshop on Food Safety Evaluation (3), came to the following conclusions: (1) Because the concept of substantial equivalence has no dimensions, it cannot be used as a predictor of which novel foods will require substantial safety testing in animals. (2) Depending on the nature of the novel food, the usefulness of the concept of substantial equivalence in determining the necessity for extensive safety testing ranges from useful to negligible. (3) The number and range of safety tests required is best determined, not by the concept of substantial equivalence, but by the nature of the product under consideration.

At first glance the term substantially equivalent implies that two foods are equivalent in all characteristics that are of importance to the consumer-safety, nutrition, flavor, and texture. However, in actual practice the investigator compares only selected characteristics of the genetically engineered food to those of its non-genetically engineered counterpart. If that relatively restricted set of characteristics is not found to be significantly different in these two, the genetically engineered food is classified as substantially equivalent to the corresponding non-genetically engineered food and is required to be neither tested further nor labeled as genetically engineered.

The argument supporting this practice is that since most of the characteristics of a particular genetically engineered food are similar to those of its non-genetically engineered counterpart, it must be the case that the genetically engineered food is substantially equivalent to its non-genetically engineered counterpart with respect to all characteristics relevant to the consumer. This is obviously a fallacious argument, and should not be used as the basis for avoiding more extensive testing and for avoiding the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Most critically, if characteristics important to food safety are not evaluated directly, the safety of consumers will be in jeopardy."
end of excerpt.
____
continued at the link.
Thank you for supporting this blog and for helping me get out this important information.Substantial equivalence. When looking at these two words many come away with the... more

JanforGore
added this
1 year ago
|
7 comments

select your country

Community Spotlight

TAGS

tagged w/ Food Safety

top videos

find current on tv

find current online

recent comments

© 2012 Current TV, LLC All Rights Reserved

the basics

follow us online

tools

stay in touch

© 2012 Current TV, LLC
All Rights Reserved