tagged w/ Food Safety
-
There has been surprisingly little research on how microwaves affect organic molecules, or how the human body responds to consuming microwaved food.
Wouldn't you expect that a product that sits in more than 90 percent of kitchens, as well as practically every break room in the country, would have been thoroughly investigated for safety?
The handful of studies that have been done generally agree, for the most part, that microwaving food damages its nutritional value. Your microwave turns your beautiful, organic veggies, for which you've paid such a premium in money or labor, into "dead" food that can cause disease.
Some excellent scientific data has been gathered regarding the detrimental effects of microwaves on the nutrients in your food:
•A study published in the November 2003 issue of The Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture[5] found that broccoli "zapped" in the microwave with a little water lost up to 97 percent of its beneficial antioxidants. By comparison, steamed broccoli lost 11 percent or fewer of its antioxidants. There were also reductions in phenolic compounds and glucosinolates, but mineral levels remained intact.
•A 1999 Scandinavian study of the cooking of asparagus spears found that microwaving caused a reduction in vitamin C[6] .
•In a study of garlic, as little as 60 seconds of microwave heating was enough to inactivate its allinase, garlic's principle active ingredient against cancer[7] .
•A Japanese study by Watanabe showed that just 6 minutes of microwave heating turned 30-40 percent of the B12 in milk into an inert (dead) form[8] . This study has been cited by Dr. Andrew Weil as evidence supporting his concerns about the effects of microwaving. Dr. Weil wrote: "There may be dangers associated with microwaving food... there is a question as to whether microwaving alters protein chemistry in ways that might be harmful."
•A recent Australian study[9] showed that microwaves cause a higher degree of "protein unfolding" than conventional heating.
•Microwaving can destroy the essential disease-fighting agents in breast milk that offer protection for your baby. In 1992, Quan found that microwaved breast milk lost lysozyme activity, antibodies, and fostered the growth of more potentially pathogenic bacteria[10] .
Quan stated that more damage was done to the milk by microwaving than by other methods of heating, concluding:
"Microwaving appears to be contraindicated at high-temperatures, and questions regarding its safety exist even at low temperatures."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/microwave-cancer_b_684662.htmlThere has been surprisingly little research on how microwaves affect organic... more
-
-
-
The recent recall of eggs suspected of causing salmonella has resulted in the recall of over half a billion eggs. The CDC began investigating the salmonella outbreak in May 2010, and have tracked the salmonella cases over the next few months, leading to the voluntary recall of eggs from Wright County Egg.
Some have suggested that this most recent recall is a sign that we need stricter food safety laws, pointing to the current system of voluntary compliance and legislation that ties the hands of the FDA. S.510, a bill that would give the FDA additional authority and resources over food safety, passed in the House one year ago but has been tied up in the Senate.
Others have suggested that we need to re-examine our entire food production system. Americans currently enjoy some of the cheapest food prices in history, partially as the result of intensive farming technqiues like concentrated animal feeding operations. Some suggest that salmonella outbreaks such as this are the price we pay for a $0.13 egg.
What about you? Do you think we need tougher food safety laws, or is it time to start re-examining the system of food production in the US?
The recent recall of eggs suspected of causing salmonella has resulted in the recall... more
-
-
This is the next installment in the monthly Monsanto Roundup, brought to you without corporate sponsorship or commercial interruption.
In this edition the discussion surrounds events taking place in the world of Monsanto and biotech:
* Monsanto's new poison, and DOW's reinvention of an old one
* Regulate and label GMOs President Obama !
* Illegal transgenic contamination events in New Zealand, Italy, Ireland,...
* Submission from Norway on the risks of GMOs to biodiversity... you know, that thing that allows us to continue living on Earth.
In lieu of reports of both declining ocean and plant diversity, I truly think it is time to take stock in just what the hell we are doing to this planet and yes, that does include climate change!
So please avail yourself of the knowledge available on the Sustainable Agriculture Group, and thanks for the support. Knowledge is power.
Monsanto, out of our food!This is the next installment in the monthly Monsanto Roundup, brought to you without... more
-
-
This scares me. A lot.
Recently, scientists have collected the first strong evidence found in the US of established GM canola in the wild. The results will be presented today at the Ecological Society of America’s 95th Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh by researchers from the University of Arkansas, led by Meredith G. Schafer.
If GM crops are reproducing on their own, it could threaten biodiversity and our food security.
http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2010/08/06/first-strong-evidence-of-genetically-modified-plants-growing-in-wild-found-in-us/This scares me. A lot.
Recently, scientists have collected the first strong... more
-
-
-
How much outrage can a single multinational corporation inspire? How much damage can they inflict? The breathtaking new film, The World According to Monsanto, featuring a company whose only rival may be BP.
Based on a painstaking investigation, this documentary pieces together the story of Monsanto, a century-old corporation with a controversial past and today’s leader in genetically modified crops. Monsanto claims it wants to solve world hunger and protect the environment, but its quest for market supremacy is to the detriment of global food security and environmental stability.
The World According to Monsanto delves into one of the largest chemical companies in history, regarded by many as one of the world’s great corporate villains.The World According to Monsanto is a chilling documentary that dives into the who, what, when, where, why and how of one of the world’s largest chemical/agriculture companies.
This is one of the most powerful, must see films for anyone interested in the behind the scenes world of the food industry, and how just one world dominating corporation holds the keys and patents to much of the worlds food supply.
Watch Video at http://morichesdaily.com/2010/07/watch-world-monsanto/
Spread the word!How much outrage can a single multinational corporation inspire? How much damage can... more
-
-
To stabilize our already chaotic climate and to avoid catastrophic global warming of 2-7 degrees centigrade or more, we must reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) pollution from our current unsustainable global level of 389 parts CO2 per million to 350 ppm or below. Otherwise, we face massive crop failures, starvation, water shortages, pestilence, and unending wars for dwindling natural resources. In practical terms, this means reducing current fossil fuel use (especially in the food, transport, housing, military, and utilities sectors) by 90% by 2050; while sequestering or storing as much CO2 as possible in the soil through organic soil management and reforestation.
By the year 2020, the U.S. needs to generate at least 25% of its energy from solar, wind, and other renewable sources (currently at 6%, while Denmark is at 20%). By 2020, 25% of our food needs to be certified organic (currently it is 4%), while drastically reducing the most-devastating greenhouse gases spewed out by industrial food and farming, methane and nitrous oxide. Only 1% of the U.S.'s 435 million acres of cultivated farmland are currently certified organic. In addition to drastically reducing fossil fuel energy use and slashing GHG emissions, each acre of farm, pasture, or range land brought under organic cultivation or management can safely sequester or store the equivalent of 7,000 pounds of climate-destabilizing CO2 per year. If all of U.S. farmland (not to mention pasture) were managed organically, we would be able to sequester almost 25% of all current GHG emissions, while significantly reducing fossil fuel use.
Given the fact that the direct (CO2, nitrous oxide, and methane) and indirect (deforestation, draining of wetlands) greenhouse gas emissions from factory farms and chemical and energy-intensive industrial agriculture constitute the majority of greenhouse gases, we call on U.S. elected officials, political candidates, and regulatory agencies to support and implement the following three public policies:
(1) Implement Truth in Labeling
Give consumers the opportunity to freely choose sustainable, climate-friendly, humane, and healthy products by requiring GMO, pesticide, antibiotic, hormone, CAFO, GHG, and country-of-origin labels on foods and products sold in grocery stores and restaurants. At the same time we must safeguard consumer choice by maintaining strict certification and labeling standards for products which are organic, Fair Trade, or genuinely healthy and sustainable.
(2) Stop Subsidizing Destructive Policies
Stop subsidizing industrial food and farm production, fossil fuels, and resource wars, and instead use these funds to promote and qualitatively fast-track clean energy, a green jobs economy, and organic farming. It is currently estimated that U.S. taxpayer subsidies to the fossil fuel and industrial food and farm sectors amounts to $60 billion a year, while wars for oil and strategic resources in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing us $200 billion annually. The money wasted on wars and industrial agriculture by the U.S. alone is enough to fast-track the conversion of the U.S. and global economy to organic agriculture and clean energy and save the world from climate catastrophe.
(3) Build an Organic and Green Economy
Begin the phase-out of industrial agriculture's most energy, GHG-intensive, and hazardous practices. These practices include the massive over-production of livestock and animal products, Genetically Modified (GM) crops and biofuels, toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, hormones, antibiotics, sewage sludge on farm lands, and slaughterhouse waste in animal feed. Ban factory farm CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) and all inhumane confinement of farm animals.To stabilize our already chaotic climate and to avoid catastrophic global warming of... more
-
-
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has issued at least 28 high-risk-food recalls already this year, keeping food safety top of mind with consumers and voters. Ten British Columbians fell ill earlier this month consuming tainted head cheese produced by Brandt Meat Packers for Freybe Gourmet Foods, the worst in a spate of scares . . .The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has issued at least 28 high-risk-food recalls... more
-
-
-
02:03 PM ET
,
Group urges ban of 3 common dyes
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says food dyes pose a number of risks to the American public and is calling on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban three of the most commonly used dyes: Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6. A new CSPI report says those dyes contain known carcinogens and contaminants that unnecessarily increase the risks of cancer, hyperactivity in children and allergic reactions.
"These synthetic chemicals do absolutely nothing to improve the nutritional quality or safety of foods, but trigger behavior problems in children and, possibly, cancer in anybody," said CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson, co-author of the report. "The Food and Drug Administration should ban dyes, which would force industry to color foods with real food ingredients, not toxic petrochemicals."
The FDA has not read the report yet an agency spokesperson said. "We appreciate the report from CSPI and look forward to reviewing it. We take our commitment to protecting children seriously".
According to the report, tests done on lab animals found contaminants that raised health concerns about several of the nine dyes currently approved for market. The approved dyes are Blue 1 & 2, Citrus Red 2, Green 3, Orange B, Red 3 & 40 and Yellow 5 & 6. And every year, about 15 million pounds of these dyes wind up in our food, with a lot of it ending up in things like candy, fruit drinks and cereals.
The report is based on the FDA's own studies, and studies done by Industry and turned over to the FDA. But a statement from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), who represents the industry says science shows food dyes are safe. "The safety of both artificial and natural colors has been affirmed through extensive review by the main global food safety bodies, including the US Food & Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority. Both the FDA and the food and beverage industry continually monitor any new research or data in this area to determine if a change in current policy is warranted. It is important for consumers and policymakers to know that food dyes are widely studied and that the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence confirms the safety of artificial food colors."
The Food Standards Agency, an independent government agency in Great Britain, released research a few years ago that suggested a linked between hyperactivity in some children and certain food coloring. Starting July 20th in the European Union, food containing some of these dyes will carry additional warning labels indicating possible adverse effects on "activity and attention in children."
CSPI went to Britain in 2008 to check out the differences in dye use first hand. It says it found more concern about food dyes and more government oversight. For example, CSPI says McDonald's Strawberry Sundaes get their color from fresh strawberries. The group says in the United States the color comes from Red dye 40. CSPI say in the UK, Fanta orange soda coloring comes from pumpkins and carrot extract. Here, it says the color comes from Red 40 and Yellow 6 dye.
Rand Carpenter, a spokesperson for Coca-Cola, who makes Fanta, says they stand by their products in the United States – and abroad. "Where colors are used in our products they have been reviewed for safety by numerous health authorities and agencies, are permitted in every country where we operate, and are considered safe."02:03 PM ET
,
Group urges ban of 3 common dyes
The Center for Science in the... more
-
-
In 2010 the quality of US food production has hit an all time low, with chemicalization of food products, ingredients and the ever increasing raid on Amish organic farms, there will be no food that is not tainted, genetically modified or plastic without nutritional value.In 2010 the quality of US food production has hit an all time low, with... more
-
-
Another day, another “uh oh.” The latest kerfuffle? Quantities of lead in bottled juice, juice boxes, and packaged fruit could exceed federal limits for the lunchbox-toting set, according to the Environmental Law Foundation. The Bay Area-based environmental nonprofit, which enlisted the aid of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-certified lab in Berkeley, tested nearly 400 samples from 150 branded products marketed to children, including apple juice, grape juice, packaged pears and peaches (including baby food), and fruit cocktail mixes. The alarming results: 125 out of 146 products—or more than 85%—contained enough lead in a single serving to warrant a warning label under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Prop. 65
http://www.inhabitots.com/2010/06/11/85-of-kids-drinks-snacks-could-contain-high-levels-of-lead/Another day, another “uh oh.” The latest kerfuffle? Quantities of lead in... more
-
-
As technology grows increasingly complex and our environmental problems ever more serious, the proposed "technological fixes" from industry grow more ludicrous and dangerous. And so it is with genetic engineering. The common disconnect between science and reality is represented perfectly by the ridiculous, and yet threateningly real GM Enviropig project. Enviropig is the grotesque realization of early scientific aspirations and laboratory accidents. Born of scientific curiosity, hubris and a complete misunderstanding of the real world, a GM pig with less phosphorus in its feces is being proposed as a solution to water pollution caused by run-off from factory farms.
Enviropig is a classic false technological fix that ignores the real causes of a problem and instead tries to develop, at great cost, a shiny, new, patented product for sale to mask the symptoms.
Enviropig is expressly designed to support existing factory farming practices. In the early days, before the advent of extensive public relations, University of Guelph scientist and Enviropig developer John Philips said as much. (item 1)
---
---
http://www.commonground.ca/iss/227/cg227_enviropig.shtml
Fifteen years ago in a lab at the University of Guelph in Ontario - then home to some of Canada's most ardent supporters of the new science of genetic engineering - an idea was conceived. Five years later, "Wayne," a genetically modified (GM) pig was born. Now, the so-called "Enviropig™" could soon be approved for human consumption in Canada and possibly the US as well.
As technology grows increasingly complex and our environmental problems ever more serious, the proposed "technological fixes" from industry grow more ludicrous and dangerous. And so it is with genetic engineering. The common disconnect between science and reality is represented perfectly by the ridiculous, and yet threateningly real GM Enviropig project. Enviropig is the grotesque realization of early scientific aspirations and laboratory accidents. Born of scientific curiosity, hubris and a complete misunderstanding of the real world, a GM pig with less phosphorous in its feces is being proposed as a solution to water pollution caused by run-off from factory farms.
Enviropig™ is the trademarked industry name for a pig that has been genetically engineered to excrete less phosphorous in its feces. It will produce the enzyme phytase in its salivary glands to enable more effective digestion of phytate, the form of phosphorus found in pig feed ingredients like corn and soybeans. Scientists inserted a transgene sequence that includes an E-coli bacteria phytase gene and a mouse promoter gene sequence.
Enviropig is a classic false technological fix that ignores the real causes of a problem and instead tries to develop, at great cost, a shiny, new, patented product for sale to mask the symptoms.
Phosphorous from animal manure is a nutrient for plants that becomes a pollutant if there's too much of it for crops to absorb and the excess runs off into streams and lakes. When pig manure spread on farmland exceeds the amount crops can use while growing, the excess phosphorus runs off as fields drain into surface waters. There, it promotes excessive algae growth. The algae form thick mats, blocking sunlight from reaching deeper waters and when the algae dies and decomposes, it uses up dissolved oxygen in the water, killing fish and other organisms. Blue-green algae, which often grow in phosphorus-rich waters, produce cyanotoxins that can kill livestock and pets if they drink the polluted water.
But phosphorus pollution is a problem specific to the industrial model of hog production where tens of thousands of pigs under one roof produce too much manure for the surrounding land to use productively. Such intensive, concentrated production means that operations import tonnes of pig feed from distant sources and must then pay the cost of disposing of millions of gallons of liquified hog manure. Operations prefer to spread manure on land within a mile or two of the industrial pig barns rather than pay to transport heavy liquid manure to more distant fields.
Enviropig is designed to reduce the amount of phosphorous produced by the pigs themselves so factory farms don't have to pay for other measures, such as reducing the number of pigs they raise in one place, trucking liquid manure longer distances or expanding the area of land for spreading manure. The real solution, however, lies in changing the model of production, not in genetically engineering the pigs.
Enviropig is expressly designed to support existing factory farming practices. In the early days, before the advent of extensive public relations, University of Guelph scientist and Enviropig developer John Philips said as much. In 1999, a Reuters article* included Philips articulating the economic rationale that, if phosphorous in pig manure is reduced by 50 percent, theoretically, farmers can raise 50 percent more pigs and still meet environmental restrictions. Philips went on to say that, in North America, Europe and in some parts of Asia, the only thing holding back a farmer's hog output is the restriction on phosphorous leaching into the water table. (*This Little Piggie Smells Better.)
Smaller farms means less "waste"
In an alternative model characterized by smaller hog production units dispersed over a wide geographic area, phosphorus in pig manure does not become an environmental problem; it is used as a valuable fertilizer instead. Phosphorus is an important plant nutrient and an essential element of soil fertility in farming. Animal manure is a source of phosphorus for growing field crops, including those used to feed pigs.
Twenty years ago, hog production in Canada was based on a successful model where tens of thousands of farmers earned a livelihood raising pigs in modest-sized operations. Now, the hog industry is dominated by a few giant hog production corporations where thousands of pigs are raised under one roof. Smaller, independent farmers have been forced out of business through loss of market access and unfair competition from huge, vertically integrated companies that own hog barns as well as packing plants and other related businesses. Hog production has doubled over the past 20 years, but in the 13 years between 1996 and 2009, the numbers of farms reporting hogs was cut by nearly two-thirds – from 21,105 to 7,675.
Intensive production has made Canada a major global supplier of hogs, but we can’t compete with other countries that have lower labour and feed costs. The result is that Canada’s hog producers have been forced to sell below their cost of production for many years and small producers have retired, sold out or gone bankrupt. Only the biggest producers and some contract producers are left, surviving almost exclusively on government subsidy programs and bailout packages. Adding a GM pig to this economically and environmentally unsustainable model will only deepen the crisis.
snip
Is Enviropig safe to eat?
Enviropig, like all GM foods in Canada, will be assessed for human safety by Health Canada and classified as a "novel food." Health Canada, however, has not yet developed specific guidelines for evaluating the safety of GM animals for human consumption. Instead, Canada will rely on the United Nations Codex guidelines and refer to the US Food and Drug Administration. Health Canada does not conduct any of its own safety tests of GM foods, but relies on data submitted directly from the product developer, in this case the University of Guelph. The data is classified as "Confidential Business Information" and is not accessible to the public or to independent scientists. Of course, there is no mandatory labelling of GM foods in Canada or the US so approval of GM pork is likely to spark an unprecedented crisis of consumer confidence in the food system.
continuedAs technology grows increasingly complex and our environmental problems ever more... more
-
-
-
It was announced last week that the Center’s case has brought out an unprecedented range of interests – from farmers’ unions and food companies to scientific experts and legal scholars – which have filed briefs in support of CFS and opposed to Monsanto. The seven briefs, filed by more than sixty individuals, companies, organizations and three states’ attorneys general – can be viewed at
http://truefoodnow.org/publications/supreme-court-briefs/
Family farmers Phil Geertson, alfalfa seed producer from Geertson Seed Farms in Idaho (tan jacket far left), and Pat Trask, third generation rancher and alfalfa farmer from South Dakota (blue jacket far right) speak to press after the hearing
“Today we will have the privilege of speaking on behalf of family farmers, the environment, and the protection of an organic alternative,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “The law and the facts are on our side and we look forward to presenting our case before the Court.”
The genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa seed at the heart of the dispute has been engineered to be immune to Monsanto’s flagship herbicide Roundup. CFS filed a 2006 lawsuit against USDA on behalf of a coalition of non-profits and farmers who wished to retain the choice to plant non-GE alfalfa. Pointing to contamination incidents that have already occurred, organic and conventional farmers anticipate widespread contamination from Monsanto’s patented GE alfalfa, because alfalfa is pollinated by bees that can cross-pollinate GE and conventional plants separated by several miles. Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and a key source of dairy forage. Similarly, contamination of feral or wild alfalfa, ubiquitous across the country, would ensure an ongoing and permanent source of transgenic pollution in wild places akin to that of invasive or exotic species.
Monsanto intervened in the case on behalf of USDA; however in 2007 the district court found in favor of CFS.. Following that, CFS won two appeals in the federal Court of Appeals, in 2008 and again in 2009. In January the Court agreed to hear the case over the opposition of both CFS and the U.S. government.
Farmers and food companies have taken note. Organic businesses and trade groups, including Organic Valley, Stonyfield Farms, the Organic Trade Association, Annie’s, Clif Bar, Eden Foods, United Natural Foods, and Nature’s Path Foods, voiced their deep concerns of the threat to their businesses posed by contamination from biotech crops in an amicus brief. The burgeoning $25 billion-a-year organic foods industry, the fastest growing food sector, is at particular risk from the effects of contamination. The organic industry brief warns that “widespread planting of RR (Roundup Ready) alfalfa imposes massive risk and uncertainty on the continued viability of organic dairy farming” and that overturning the lower courts would “irreparably harm” their ability to grow and sell organic food. Conventional farmers and exporters filed a similar brief, warning of lost overseas alfalfa markets in Asia, Europe and the Middle East that reject biotech-contaminated crops. GE contamination of conventional rice and corn crops in the past decade have cost U.S. farmers billions in lost markets. In Canada, the introduction of GE canola destroyed the nascent organic canola industry in that country.
continuedIt was announced last week that the Center’s case has brought out an... more
-
-
Small-scale food producers and farmers have been vocal about their concerns that the Senate will pass highly burdensome food-safety legislation.
Equally worried, but much less vocal, is the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It frets over major gains by its arch-rival, the U.S. food and Drug Administration, over local food producers and small farms. USDA is so worried it has even had its Senate allies include language that "prohibited the FDA from 'impeding, minimizing, or affecting' USDA authority on meat, poultry, and eggs," according to Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety.
The legislation, if it passes as expected (and is signed into law, as President Obama has already vowed to do), will represent a major coup for FDA, and in the process, a loss in influence for USDA. The bill wouldn't so much take power from USDA as give FDA new power, and in the process providing FDA a leg up on its rival.
USDA had for more than a decade pinned its hopes on gaining the upper hand in food safety through the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), but when that bombed earlier this year, FDA had a clear opportunity, which it has expertly exploited through the pending legislation.
The FDA's growing authority over the American food system will likely include the power to quarantine large sections of the country if it decides there's a food safety emergency and to randomly inspect virtually all food producers, including roadside stands, and monitor and approve their preparation of detailed, and costly, hazard-control plans. Moreover, the legislation gives the FDA a new foothold among farmers via the authority establish safety standards (about use of compost, application of fertilizers, etc.) under the euphemistically titled United Nations program, "Good Agricultural Practices".
With power, of course, comes money--in this case, lots more money, for inspectors to carry out all those random inspections of thousands of tiny food producers.
"We are seeking better controls at the point of production," crowed FDA's commissioner, Margaret Hamburg, in a February speech about food safety. One main "point of (food) production"--the farm-- has of course been USDA's turf.
The FDA and USDA have long participated in an uneasy alliance overseeing the food supply, with confusing responsibilities (USDA oversees animal slaughtering, FDA oversees dairy production). The loss of influence for USDA that will come via the food safety legislation is merely the latest failure for USDA. A few months ago, it suffered a major setback when farmer ire forced Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack to trash, at least temporarily, its own version of a food safety program--the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The program would have allowed the USDA to oversee the registration of hundreds of thousands of farms, and the RFID-chip tagging of literally billions of animals (including chickens, goats, sheep, cattle, and so forth)--ostensibly to protect America's meat supply from the ravages of quickly-spreading animal disease.
Why should anyone care about which bureaucratic behemoth comes out on top in this kind of rivalry?
For one very good reason: For all its coddling of Big Ag, the USDA has shown itself to be increasingly supportive of the growing local-food movement in recent years, while the FDA has long been very tough on small food companies, and shows no sign of wanting to encourage the move to locally-grown food.
And while Michael Taylor, the FDA's food safety czar, talks in speeches about approving of "sustainable" food production, the agency's actions toward those involved in promoting sustainable agriculture have long been the opposite. Any food company that even begins to suggest its food might provide health benefits becomes a target of the agency's knee-jerk reaction that it is positioning food as a drug. Back in 2006, the FDA sent warning letters--threats of court action and possible shutdown--to 29 Michigan cherry growers, for citing studies suggesting health benefits in concentrated cherry juice.
In 2008, FDA filed suit against a small seller of herbs, coconut oil and other health foods for allegedly making similar food-as-drug claims. To avoid legal bills that would have bankrupted it, Wilderness Family Naturals signed a consent decree with the FDA that allows the FDA to conduct twice yearly examinations over a three-year period of its labeling and advertising--that the company has to pay for to the turn of $100 an hour.
When the FDA tried to impose the same kind of burden on Organic Pastures Dairy Co., a California producer of unpasteurized milk, as part of a settlement of an FDA suit for, in part, suggesting that raw milk helps alleviate symptoms of asthma (which has been demonstrated in large-scale European studies), the dairy fought back. Just a few weeks ago, a federal judge, Oliver Wanger, castigated the FDA lawyer arguing for the sanctions.
cont.Small-scale food producers and farmers have been vocal about their concerns that the... more
-
-
The junk food and poor eating habits affecting humans is also killing their four-legged pals, say veterinary surgeons and experts.
Allergies and obesity are reducing the life expectancy of Lassies and Mittens nourished worldwide on industrial foodstuffs, said Gerard Lippert, a Belgian acupuncturist for animals who has just completed a study on the diets of 600 dead dogs.
“Pets, like humans, are victims of junk food,” he said.
Of the 600 furry corpses he examined “those fed on processed foods died three years earlier than those fed on food made in the home.”
Dogs, he said, “originally were omnivores who shared their food with humans.”
Rippert said he was increasingly called on to heal skin, motor and digestive problems as acupuncture was an all-embracing method enabling work on practically all organs.
“Dry dog food and cat food croquettes are overheated, which destroys vitamins, trace elements and other basic nutritional elements,” he said.
“We don’t know the origin of the proteins in the foods,” he said. “And there’s an excessive amount of cereal, often genetically modified, and very little vegetables.”
*Follow linked page for more - http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2010/04/13/2003470434The junk food and poor eating habits affecting humans is also killing their... more
-
-
WASHINGTON— Sidestepping a stalled Senate confirmation vote, yesterday President Obama recess-appointed Islam Siddiqui to be chief agricultural negotiator in the office of the U.S. trade representative. Dr. Siddiqui’s nomination was held up in the Senate and was opposed by the Center for Biological Diversity and more than 80 other environmental, small-farm, and consumer groups. More than 90,000 concerned citizens contacted the White House and Senate to oppose the nomination. Siddiqui is a former pesticide lobbyist and is currently vice president of science and regulatory affairs at CropLife America, a biotech and pesticide trade group that lobbies to weaken environmental laws.
“Dr. Siddiqui’s confirmation is a step backward,” said Tierra Curry, a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “His appointment ensures the perpetuation of pesticide- and fossil-fuel-intensive policies, which undermine global food security and imperil public health and wildlife.”
As undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Siddiqui oversaw the development of the first national organic labeling standards, which allowed sewage sludge-fertilized, genetically modified, and irradiated food to be labeled as organic before public outcry forced more stringent standards. Siddiqui has derided the European Union’s ban on hormone-treated beef and has vowed to pressure the European Union to accept more genetically modified crops.
CropLife America, formerly known as the National Agricultural Chemicals Association, lobbies to weaken the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, claiming that pesticides are not pollutants because of their intended beneficial effect and that pesticides positively impact endangered species. The group has lobbied to allow pesticides to be tested on children and to allow the continued use of persistent organic pollutants and ozone-depleting chemicals. It also launched a petition asking Michelle Obama to use pesticides in the organic White House garden and fought county initiatives in California banning genetically modified foods.WASHINGTON— Sidestepping a stalled Senate confirmation vote, yesterday President... more
-
-
