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.
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
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 USDA just green light China to export chicken 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Study Shows Animals Are Seriously Harmed By Eating GM Crops
Posted: June 12th, 2013
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.”
Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out on the Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food
By Dr. Mercola
Who better to speak the truth about the risks posed by genetically modified (GM) foods than Thierry Vrain, a former research scientist for Agriculture Canada? It was Vrain’s job to address public groups and reassure them that GM crops and food were safe, a task he did with considerable knowledge and passion.
But Vrain, who once touted GM crops as a technological advancement indicative of sound science and progress, has since started to acknowledge the steady flow of research coming from prestigious labs and published in high-impact journals – research showing that there is significant reason for concern about GM crops – and he has now changed his position.
Former Pro-GMO Scientist Cites GM Food Safety Concerns
Vrain cites the concerning fact that it is studies done by Monsanto and other biotech companies that claim GM crops have no impact on the environment and are safe to eat. But federal departments in charge of food safety in the US and Canada have not conducted tests to affirm this alleged “safety.”
“There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries [US and Canada] to demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely.
These studies show that proteins produced by engineered plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic proteins.
… I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.”
“The Whole Paradigm of Genetic Engineering Technology is Based on a Misunderstanding”
This misunderstanding is the “one gene, one protein” hypothesis from 70 years ago, which stated that each gene codes for a single protein. However, the Human Genome project completed in 2002 failed dramatically to identify one gene for every one protein in the human body, forcing researchers to look to epigenetic factors — namely, “factors beyond the control of the gene” – to explain how organisms are formed, and how they work.
According to Vrain:
“Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.
The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic.”
In other words, genetic engineering is based on an extremely oversimplified model that suggests that by taking out or adding one or several genes, you can create a particular effect or result. But this premise, which GMO expert Dr. Philip Bereano calls “the Lego model,” is not correct. You cannot simply take out a yellow piece and put in a green piece and call the structure identical because there are complex interactions that are still going to take place and be altered, even if the initial structure still stands.
Serious Problems May Arise From Horizontal Gene Transfer
GE plants and animals are created using horizontal gene transfer (also called horizontal inheritance), as contrasted with vertical gene transfer, which is the mechanism in natural reproduction. Vertical gene transfer, or vertical inheritance, is the transmission of genes from the parent generation to offspring via sexual or asexual reproduction, i.e., breeding a male and female from one species.
By contrast, horizontal gene transfer involves injecting a gene from one species into a completely different species, which yields unexpected and often unpredictable results. Proponents of GM crops assume they can apply the principles of vertical inheritance to horizontal inheritance, but according to Dr. David Suzuki, an award-winning geneticist, this assumption is flawed in just about every possible way and is “just lousy science.”
Genes don’t function in a vacuum — they act in the context of the entire genome. Whole sets of genes are turned on and off in order to arrive at a particular organism, and the entire orchestration is an activated genome. It’s a dangerous mistake to assume a gene’s traits are expressed properly, regardless of where they’re inserted. The safety of GM food is based only on a hypothesis, and this hypothesis is already being proven wrong.
Leading Scientists Disprove GMO Safety
Vrain cites the compelling report “GMO Myths and Truths”2 as just one of many scientific examples disputing the claims of the biotech industry that GM crops yield better and more nutritious food, save on the use of pesticides, have no environmental impact whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat. The authors took a science-based approach to evaluating the available research, arriving at the conclusion that most of the scientific evidence regarding safety and increased yield potential do not at all support the claims. In fact, the evidence demonstrates the claims for genetically engineered foods are not just wildly overblown – they simply aren’t true.
The authors of this critical report include Michael Antoniou, PhD, who heads the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College at London School of Medicine in the UK. He’s a 28-year veteran of genetic engineering technology who has himself invented a number of gene expression biotechnologies; and John Fagan, PhD, a leading authority on food sustainability, biosafety, and GE testing. If you want to get a comprehensive understanding of genetically engineered foods, I strongly recommend reading this report.
Not only are GM foods less nutritious than non-GM foods, they pose distinct health risks, are inadequately regulated, harm the environment and farmers, and are a poor solution to world hunger. Worse still, these questionable GM crops are now polluting non-GM crops, leading to contamination that cannot ever be “recalled” the way you can take a bad drug off the market … once traditional foods are contaminated with GM genes, there is no going back! Vrain expanded:3
“Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South America where GM crops are grown that the fields of conventional and organic grower are regularly contaminated with engineered pollen and losing certification. The canola and flax export market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution.”
American Academy of Environmental Medicine Called for Moratorium on GM Foods FOUR Years Ago
In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium on GM foods, and said that long-term independent studies must be conducted, stating:
“Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. …There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…”
Despite this sound warning, GM foods continue to be added to the US food supply with no warning to the Americans buying and eating this food. Genetic manipulation of crops, and more recently food animals, is a dangerous game that has repeatedly revealed that assumptions about how genetic alterations work and the effects they have on animals and humans who consume such foods are deeply flawed and incomplete. Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant claims genetically engineered crops are “the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen.” What he doesn’t tell you is that:
Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When industry funds the research, it’s virtually guaranteed to be positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to replicate and thus verify results.
The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90 days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In the world’s first independently funded lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and cancer.
Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence independent research is extremely difficult to conduct.
There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the GM item in question has been approved, not a single country on earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects.
It Might Take More Than One Bite to Kill You …
“One argument I hear repeatedly is that nobody has been sick or died after a meal (or a trillion meals since 1996) of GM food,” Vrain said. “Nobody gets ill from smoking a pack of cigarettes either. But it sure adds up, and we did not know that in the 1950s before we started our wave of epidemics of cancer. Except this time it is not about a bit of smoke, it’s the whole food system that is of concern. The corporate interest must be subordinated to the public interest, and the policy of substantial equivalence must be scrapped as it is clearly untrue.”
Remember, Vrain used to give talks about the benefits of GM foods, but he simply couldn’t ignore the research any longer … and why, then, should you? All in all, if GM foods have something wrong with them that potentially could cause widespread illness or environmental devastation, Monsanto would rather NOT have you find out about it. Not through independent research, nor through a simple little label that would allow you to opt out of the experiment, should you choose not to take them on their word. As Vrain continued:
“The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.
… We should all take these studies seriously and demand that government agencies replicate them rather than rely on studies paid for by the biotech companies … Individuals should be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety based on scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the personal opinions of others.”
At present, the only way to avoid GM foods is to ditch processed foods from your grocery list, and revert back to whole foods grown according to organic standards.
Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods
While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. As stated on LabelitWA.org:
“Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn’t required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn’t have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.
Doesn’t it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.
I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers.”
Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.
No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.
China doesn’t exactly have a stellar track record in regard to 
