Undeclared Aspartame in milk, yogurt?

The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) filed a petition with the FDA on 20 February 2013 to alter the definition of "milk" to secretly include chemical sweeteners like aspartame and chlorine-containing sucralose without them being listed on the label.

The full text of the Petition to Amend the Standard of Identity for Milk and 17 Additional Dairy Products may be found in the Federal Register here. Scroll down to "Food and Drug Administration, Proposed Rules" for the PDF.

The petition requests that FDA similarly amend the standards of identity for 17 other milk and cream products. Those standards (referred to as the “additional dairy standards”) are as follows:

Acidified milk (§ 131.111)
cultured milk (§ 131.112)
sweetened condensed milk (§ 131.120)
nonfat dry milk (§ 131.125)
nonfat dry milk fortified with vitamins A and D (§ 131.127)
evaporated milk (§ 131.130)
dry cream (§ 131.149)
heavy cream (§ 131.150)
light cream (§ 131.155)
light whipping cream (§ 131.157)
sour cream (§ 131.160)
acidified sour cream (§ 131.162)
eggnog (§ 131.170)
half-and-half (§ 131.180)
yogurt (§ 131.200)
lowfat yogurt (§ 131.203)
nonfat yogurt (§ 131.206)

According to Natural News: DFA and NMPF argue that nutrient content claims such as "reduced calorie" are not attractive to children, and maintain that consumers can more easily identify the overall nutritional value of milk products that are flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners if the labels do not include such claims. Further, the petitioners assert that consumers do not recognize milk -- including flavored milk -- as necessarily containing sugar. Accordingly, the petitioners state that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can "more easily identify its overall nutritional value."

This is all being done to "save the children," we're told, because the use of aspartame in milk products would reduce calories.

In other words, hiding aspartame from consumers by not including it on the label actually helps consumers, according to the IDFA and NMPF!

Yep, consumers are best served by keeping them ignorant. If this logic smacks of the same kind of twisted deception practiced by Monsanto, that's because it's identical: the less consumers know, the more they are helped, according to industry. And it's for the children, too, because children are also best served by keeping them poisoned with aspartame.

Consumers have always been kept in the dark about pink slime, meat glue, rBGH and GMOs in their food. And now, if the IDFA gets its way, you'll be able to drink hormone-contaminated milk from an antibiotics-inundated cow fed genetically modified crops and producing milk containing hidden aspartame. And you won't have the right to know about any of this!

The FDA confirms this "secret" status of aspartame, stating, "If the standard of identity for milk is amended as requested by petitioners, milk manufacturers could use non-nutritive sweeteners in flavored milk without a nutrient content claim in its labeling."

The FDA is requesting public comments until May 25, 2013 on this dangerous proposed rule. Click here for instructions.

Speaking out of both sides of the mouth

The most important opportunity to affect the control the Corporate Agribusiness has over our foods is Proposition 37 on the California ballot in November. Prop. 37 is the Right to Know (what's in our food), mandating GMO labelling.

All Proposition 37 does is require clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified. We already have food labels showing nutrition, allergy information and other facts consumers want to know. This measure simply adds information telling us if food is produced using genetic engineering, which is when food is modified in a laboratory by adding DNA from other plants, animals, bacteria or viruses.    

I think the California vote on Prop. 37 is perhaps even more important that the Presidential vote. After all, no matter who is elected President, he will still have 535 Voting Members of Congress to deal with anything he wants to change or accomplish. However, if Prop. 37 passes, it will ultimately inform every one of us in the U.S. who purchases food because it will be too costly and cumbersome for corporations to have different food labels for foods sold in different states.

Most of us imagine that anything "organic" (by Law non-GMO) would automatically be on the side to defeat the proposition, yet many large corporations that produce or market organic foods have helped put over $26 MILLION into the war chest to defeat the initiative. How can these corporations market some foods as good for us, yet refuse to label what's in the other foods they market?

        Kellogg’s (Kashi, Bear Naked, Morningstar Farms);
        General Mills (Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, Larabar);
        Dean Foods (Horizon, Silk, White Wave);
        Smucker’s (R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic);
        Coca-Cola (Honest Tea, Odwalla);
        Safeway (‘O’ Organics);
        Kraft (Boca Burgers and Back to Nature);
        Con-Agra (Orville Redenbacher’s Organic, Hunt’s Organic, Lightlife); and
        PepsiCo (Naked Juice, Tostito’s Organic, Tropicana Organic).

On the other hand, there are many smaller organic leaders supporting the Proposition. By enlarging the poster above, you can see the companies donating to the cause. Please support them and their products when possible!  

The current Administration has deregulated more genetically modified foods than ever. From plums to alfalfa and even sugar beets. But it's not just that so many crops are modified (93% of all soy, 86% of corn, and 93% of canola seeds are now genetically modified) it's that there's currently no labeling system in place so that we know what we're buying. 

We are one of the few industrialized nations that doesn't require labeling of GMO foods. In the past year alone 19 U.S. states have attempted to pass GMO labeling laws, but each time Monsanto and biotech lobbyists have threatened to sue. Only Alaska, with its huge wild salmon industry, has passed a biotech seafood labeling law.

Most of us would like to believe that our foods come from nature, but that's far from the case. In 40 countries, including Australia, Japan and all European Union nations, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production of GMOs because they are not considered proven safe.

Update: Giant pesticide and big food companies have so far donated more than $37 million to defeat Yes on 37 to label GMOs in California. Earlier this spring, the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA), of which Monsanto is a leading partner, declared that defeating Prop 37 was its single highest priority for 2012.

Monsanto just funneled another $2.9 million dollars to defeat California’s Prop 37 to label genetically engineered foods. This comes on top of their $4.2 million dollar pledge only weeks ago and brings Monsanto’s combined total to more than $7.1 million dollars!  That’s a huge pile of cash and it’s dedicated to only one thing – denying us the Right to Know what’s in our food.

My Question: Did Monsanto just kick in more $$ because they are concerned the People might actually WIN??

.

The're doing it again: "Raw" Almonds

http://www.flickr.com/photos/healthaliciousness/5604663581/

Many years ago, raw almonds were part of my daily diet. Adele Davis advised 3 raw almonds daily to avoid cancer. (Almonds contain laetril, a cancer-fighting agent.) In the outbreak of salmonella in raw almonds a few years back, thirty-three people became ill, but no one died. (Contrast that to the thousands of deaths caused by prescription drugs each year!)

"Almonds have tremendous health benefits. They are an excellent source of manganese, copper, and vitamin B2 (all of which are important for the body’s energy production). Almonds are rich in magnesium, phosphorus, zinc and vitamin E, and high in health-promoting monounsaturated fatty acids and many other nutrients.

Raw almonds (with no heat applied) are particularly healthy. According to USDA data, raw almonds have more calcium, iron, potassium, fiber, manganese, and vitamin E. By insisting that raw almonds be “sterilized,” USDA is trying to take an extremely healthy food sound scary—something the public needs to be “protected” from, when actually the public may be more at risk from the chemical used to treat the nuts. Raw, organic almonds are not scary. As we point out in our brief, no salmonella outbreaks have been associated with organic almonds because they follow higher-quality processing controls. Therefore, organic raw almonds should not have been subject to the mandate in the first place." Source
 

So now all US raw almonds are being sterilized "for our safety" but the problem is HOW, and the effects of different methods, plus lack of labeling to tell us which method was used. Over 68% of US almonds are treated with PPO.

"Imported almonds are not subject to the almond rule (how is that for logic?)—so if consumers want real raw almonds, they will have to buy the imported ones. What a tragedy that our public policy is deliberately hurting the domestic market—especially small organic farmers, who need every sale they can get!

According to the Almond Board, five methods of “pasteurization” are permitted: oil roasting, dry roasting, blanching, steam processing, and the use of propylene oxide (PPO). A sixth method involved irradiating the almonds, and this was used for a number of years, but now the Almond Board states that “Almond pasteurization does not include irradiation.”

What is PPO you ask?

PPO is an extremely volatile liquid used in the production of polyurethane plastics. It was once used as a racing fuel, but was banned by both the National Hot Rod and American Motorcycle Racing Associations for being too dangerous—it’s so volatile that it is used in fuel–air bombs.

The material safety data sheet for PPO warns:
"Causes gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. May cause central nervous system depression, characterized by excitement, followed by headache, dizziness, drowsiness, and nausea. Advanced stages may cause collapse, unconsciousness, coma and possible death due to respiratory failure. Aspiration of material into the lungs may cause chemical pneumonitis, which may be fatal…. May cause reproductive and fetal effects. Laboratory experiments have resulted in mutagenic effects. May cause heritable genetic damage."

According to the EPA, acute (short-term) exposure to PPO has caused eye and respiratory tract irritation, and skin irritation and necrosis. It’s also a mild central nervous system depressant and causes inflammatory lesions of the nasal cavity, trachea, and lungs. In animal studies, PPO causes neurological effects and tumors, leading EPA to classify it as a class B2 carcinogen, and California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Massachusetts to list it on their state right-to-know registries as a known carcinogen.

Certainly the first three methods completely cook the nuts, so they are no longer raw. Of the last two, steam causes a marked reduction in nutrient content and partially cooks the nuts, and PPO is, according to the EPA, a “probable human carcinogen.”

So for raw almonds, your choice is to either cook them or make them potentially toxic. Steam treatments are running up to $2.5 million, whereas PPO starts at $500,000. Which do you think most farmers choose?

The “pasteurization” rule was introduced in 2007 in response to a string of salmonella outbreaks linked to large almond processing plants in 2001 and 2004. California’s Almond Board colluded with the USDA to propose mandatory “sterilization” across the industry, and the USDA agreed to implement and enforce the new rule.

Raw organic almonds not treated with PPO may be heat pasteurized with steam. But heat may oxidize the omega 3 fatty acids in almonds, potentially turning them rancid and producing free radicals, which are believed to play a role in the development of cancer and other degenerative diseases.

Even worse, there is no labeling requirement to show that almonds have been steamed or treated with PPO, so consumers are misled into thinking they are eating truly natural raw almonds when in fact they are not. Labeling is an absolute necessity for consumers to make an informed choice.

When the rule was instituted, raw and organic almond farmers were outraged and pushed back. They fought the USDA, and in 2010 a federal appeals court ruled they could challenge USDA’s almond regulation.

Now ANH-USA has submitted an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs (an amicus curiae, Latin for “friend of the court,” is an outsider who provides information to assist the court in making its decision). Our brief will allow ANH-USA to raise issues that may not be brought up by the plaintiffs during regular trial proceedings. It will also let us take a stand against the USDA and call attention to the public policy and public health implications of the almond rule.

Besides the aforementioned problems with the “pasteurization” process, there are serious legal concerns about the rule-making process. USDA did not go through the normal, open public hearing and comment process when issuing the almond rule. The agency contacted only 115 select almond growers and handlers—out of a total of over 6,000—to invite them to comment on the proposed rule, and consumers and retailers were almost universally unaware of the proposed rule. Only eighteen public comments were received from the entire country.

ANH-USA sees the almond rule as a slippery slope, because for the first time USDA is establishing minimum “standards” for how farm products are processed, setting a dangerous precedent for the potential sterilization of other organic agricultural products. Will they try to irradiate spinach, or will they realize the process will actually destroy the delicate product? We argue in our brief that the USDA is not a food safety agency and thus such decisions are not within their mandate.

The lack of labeling is arguably a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, which declares unfair or deceptive acts or practices to be unlawful. A “deceptive act” includes a “misleading omission.” Labeling steam-heated almonds as raw is intentionally misleading; and we would argue that not disclosing the fact that almonds are being treated with PPO, when the public, if they knew of the practice, would surely refuse to buy them, is extraordinarily deceptive.
Source

Indentured Politicians - What's in it for Them??

I came across an interesting term recently, new to me but maybe not to you. It really explains a LOT! The term is "Indentured Politicians". Does that need any explanation? LOL.

But just in case it needs explanation, "indentured politicians" are those who "owe favors" to the big contributors to their election campaigns, and the politicians return the "favor" by voting in favor those contributors when new laws (and other regulatory federal legislation) come up for votes, rather than voting the requirements of the population they are charged to represent. I'm posting my thoughts about this here because I believe it explains why the regulatory agencies for our food systems have gone bonkers.

When it takes millions of dollars (or sometimes billions of dollars depending on the office sought) to be successful in a political campaign, is it any wonder why big corporations see an advantage to finance a candidate who will favor the corporation's interests in future legislation?

One interesting question I have, is why a candidate will spend millions of dollars campaigning for a position that pays far less than they spend to get there? What else is in it for them? The current salary (2011-2012) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year. House Representatives are elected for a 2 year term, and Senate representatives for 6 years.

In order for a member of the House of Congress to qualify for a pension, they would have to be elected 3 times, for a total 6 year payout of $1,044,000, which is far less total salary than what they spent to get it. A Senator only has to serve 1 term (6 years) to qualify for a pension; same pay for 1 Senate term of 6 years that a Congressional Representative gets for 3 terms (6 years, $1,044,000), far less than either spent to get there.

So, where's the payoff for election to federal office, when you consider cost to get there versus salary once there? It certainly IS NOT in the salary, and probably not even in Employee Benefits, although the overall "esteem" of the Office no doubt strokes their ego. That STILL doesn't cut it in the money balance.

• In a complex system of calculations, administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, congressional pay rates also affect the salaries for federal judges and other senior government executives.
• During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.
• From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year. ($3,000 of 1855 dollars would be worth: $78,947.37 in 2012)

Please note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. (80% of the current pay of $174,000 is $139,200. I could live on that!)

President's Salary
Effective January 1, 2001, the annual salary of the president of the United States was increased to $400,000 per year, including a $50,000 expense allowance. Please note that the Presidential salary doubled in 2001.

The increase was approved as part of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-58), passed in the closing days of the 106th Congress.

"Sec. 644. (a) Increase in Annual Compensation.--Section 102 of title 3, United States Code, is amended by striking '$200,000' and inserting '$400,000'. (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take effect at noon on January 20, 2001."

Vice President's Salary
The salary of the vice president is currently (for 2011) $230,700. (BTW, who IS our VP [yes, I do know his name] and what does he do? I never see his name in the news.)

Presidential Retirement and Maintenance
Under the Former Presidents Act, each former president is paid a lifetime, taxable pension that is equal to the annual rate of basic pay for the head of an executive federal department -- $199,700 in 2011 -- the same annual salary paid to secretaries of the Cabinet agencies.

Each former president and vice president may also take advantage of funds allocated by Congress to help facilitate their transition to private life. These funds are used to provide suitable office space, staff compensation, communications services, and printing and postage associated with the transition. As an example, Congress authorized a total of $1.5 million for the transition expenses of outgoing president George H.W. Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle.

So, where IS the payoff? It sure doesn't appear to favor Joe Citizen who voted for Representation in Congress.

Monsanto Threatens Vermont

The world’s most hated corporation is at it again, this time in Vermont.

"Despite overwhelming public support and support from a clear majority of Vermont’s Agriculture Committee, Vermont legislators are dragging their feet on a proposed GMO labeling bill. Why? Because Monsanto has threatened to sue the state if the bill passes.

The popular legislative bill requiring mandatory labels on genetically engineered food (H-722) is languishing in the Vermont House Agriculture Committee, with only four weeks left until the legislature adjourns for the year. Despite thousands of emails and calls from constituents who overwhelmingly support mandatory labeling, despite the fact that a majority (6 to 5) of Agriculture Committee members support passage of the measure, Vermont legislators are holding up the labeling bill and refusing to take a vote.

Monsanto has used lawsuits or threats of lawsuits for 20 years to force unlabeled genetically engineered foods on the public, and to intimidate farmers into buying their genetically engineered seeds and hormones. When Vermont became the first state in the nation in 1994 to require mandatory labels on milk and dairy products derived from cows injected with the controversial genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone, Monsanto’s minions sued in Federal Court and won on a judge’s decision that dairy corporations have the first amendment “right” to remain silent on whether or not they are injecting their cows with rBGH - even though rBGH has been linked to severe health damage in cows and increased cancer risk for humans, and is banned in much of the industrialized world, including Europe and Canada.

Monsanto wields tremendous influence in Washington, DC and most state capitals. The company’s stranglehold over politicians and regulatory officials is what has prompted activists in California to bypass the legislature and collect 850,000 signatures to place a citizens’ Initiative on the ballot in November 2012. The 2012 California Right to Know Act will force mandatory labeling of GMOs and to ban the routine practice of labeling GMO-tainted food as “natural.”

On the other side of the fence, Monsanto’s lobbyist and Vermont mouthpiece, Margaret Laggis employed inaccurate, unsubstantiated, fear-mongering claims to make Monsanto’s case. She warned during the hearings that if this law were passed, there would not be enough corn, canola, and soybean seed for Vermont farmers to plant.

Laggis lied when she said that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had done exhaustive feeding tests on genetically modified foods. Hansen corrected her, testifying that all of the GMO feeding tests submitted to the FDA were conducted by Monsanto and other GMO corporations and that the FDA had not done any GMO testing of its own.

Laggis lied again when she claimed that a recent Canadian study showing that more than 90% pregnant women had high levels of a genetically modified bacterial pesticide in their blood resulted from them “eating too much organic food” during pregnancy. Again, Hansen refuted this nonsense by pointing out that the Bacillus thuingensis (Bt) bacterium spray used by organic growers is chemically and materially different from the GMO Bt bacterium which showed up in the pregnant women’s blood and the umbilical cords of their fetuses. Hanson pointed that the high levels of Monsanto’s mutant Bt in the women’s blood was due to the widespread cultivation of GMO corn, cotton, soy, and canola.

The committee heard testimony that European Union studies have been conducted which showed that even short-term feeding studies of GMO crops caused 43.5% of male test animals to suffer kidney abnormalities, and 30.8% of female test animals to suffer liver abnormalities. Studies also have shown that the intestinal lining of animals fed GMO food was thickened compared to the control animals. All of these short-term results could become chronic, and thus precursors to cancer.

(Studies like these have prompted 50 nations around the world to pass laws requiring mandatory labels on GMO foods.)

In the end, none of the scientific testimony mattered. Monsanto operatives simply reverted to their usual tactics: They openly threatened to sue the state.

Unfortunately in the US, industry and the government continue to side with Monsanto rather than the 90% of consumers who support labeling. Monsanto’s biotech bullying is a classic example of how the 1% control the rest of us, even in Vermont, generally acknowledged as the most progressive state in the nation.

What it really comes down to this: Elected officials are abandoning the public interest and public will in the face of corporate intimidation."

If you live in Vermont, activists are organizing a protest at the state capital on April 12 to coincide with the next round of hearings on H-722, and are asking residents to write letters, make calls, and e-mail their legislators and the Governor. For more information, please go to the website  or the Facebook page of the Vermont Right to Know Campaign.

~Source

"Specialty Crops" and the Farm Bill

In trying to understand how and why our government has allowed so much adulteration of my food supply, I finally had to start following the money. A lot of the money comes from Farm Bill subsidies...and the Farm Bill must be the recipient of the most expensive lobbying in our history, outside of maybe the presidential campaigns!

I bet you have never read any portion of the Farm Bill. It's not an easy task, reading through the Farm Bill. The last one, passed in 2008 (good for 5 years) weighed in at 1,770 pages. I wonder if even those that write it have a clear, full picture of all of it... too many fingers in the pie. I certainly don't understand much of it, yet it affects us all, daily. 

There are, however, some glaring facts and omissions, plus at least one or two really good programs. 

First, the good: 

Programs like SNAP (formerly called food stamps) are fully funded by the Farm Bill, and the National School Lunch Program and other school-based child nutrition programs get some funding from it,as I understand the inter-agency convolutions. Another small Farm Bill program gives farmer's market vouchers to low-income senior citizens like me. Although the vouchers are cumbersome to use (each voucher is for $5 and no vendor is allowed to give change), I made some use of the $40 I got in vouchers in 2011, probably getting around $20 total in produce for my vouchers. But it wasn't really very fair economically, because our tax dollars paid $40 for my $20 of produce. The vendors should be able to give change, even if if it's just another smaller-amount voucher to use later.

Did you know that the fruit and vegetable products that hit our grocery stores are only considered as "specialty crops" by the USDA, and that is how they are handled by the Farm Bill? Handled only as "bit players" on the sidelines in the Farm Bill.  Only 1% of the Farm Bill goes towards specialty crops.

I don't know about you, but I'd choose to use some of our tax dollars to support local, ethical family farmers who grow my apples, carrots, beans and broccoli. And more specifically, the organic farmers who do not infuse my fruits and vegetables with pesticides and herbicides.

The not-so-good

The products the Farm Bill mainly subsidizes are the five big commodity crops: corn, wheat, rice, soybeans and cotton. The dollar value of the commodity crops the US exported in 2010 was $108,662,000,000, and we subsidized them to grow it. The payments go out regardless of need. In fact, since 1995, a mere 10 percent of all subsidized farms – only the largest and wealthiest operations – have raked in 74 percent of all subsidy payments. The money kept on coming right through the five highest earnings years ever for farm income. (Source)

Commercial corn farmers made a killing in 2011, mainly because they were subsidized to provide corn for the failing ethanol program, feed corn for CAFO's, and of course, for the high fructose corn syrup used in far too many packaged items on the grocery shelves. 

Then there's soy...

Soy is a known obesogen (which leads to weight gain) as well as a known goitrogen (substances that suppress the function of the thyroid gland which also leads to weight gain; think: goiter) and in spite of the rising obesity levels and consequential health care costs in the US, the 2007-2012 Farm Bill allocated $42 billion of our tax money for industrial farmed GMO soy beans. Data from the USDA indicates 94% of all soybean crops in the US are GMO, and the FDA even pushes soy... “Diets that include 25 grams of soy protein a day may reduce the risk of heart disease.” 

Did I miss somewhere that being overweight (thanks in part to chemicals in soy) reduces the risk of heart disease?

There are three problematic monocultures in industrial agriculture: corn, soy, and sugar. U.S. Farm Bill subsidies for these (as well as for other commodity crops) encourage cheap and unhealthy foods and food fillers, sick GMO-fed animals whose meat enters our food system, extreme pesticide use, and damage to soil and water sources. The Commodity Cropism project seeks to expose veiled information about these crops, and provide the public with data left out or obscured by loosely monitored food production and labeling systems.

Monsanto’s GMO Beet sugar seed is now used by 95% of beet farmers (usually under multi-year binding seed contracts they can't get out of), who supplied around 50% of the nation’s sugar in 2011... 64 pounds per person per year, up 28%.

I have read that US foreign aid policies are very often include a clause that requires the receiving nation to accept and use Monsanto GMO seed as a requisite for getting our aid. What's with that??

When was the first food and farm bill signed into law and why?

The first one was signed into law as a temporary measure in 1933 as a way to aid farmers suffering in the Great Depression. Since then it has come before Congress roughly every five years. Nutrition programs were added to the farm bill in the late 1970s to win the support of lawmakers from urban districts. The 2008 Farm Bill had a price tag of nearly $300 billion. It expires in 2012.

Since a lot of the money does go to nutrition programs like SNAP, it’s time to start calling it a "food and farm bill" and to increase investments in healthy food programs. A top priority is to protect food assistance programs for the neediest, especially in the lingering aftermath of the 2008 recession. ... work to improve and expand programs that increase access to healthy foods, strengthen local and regional food systems and provide new markets for diversified, local, sustainable and organic growers and ranchers. (Source)

I'd like to see subsidies (IF THEY ARE REALLY NECESARY) used properly, and not just be "gimmies" for BigAg... and I agree with the Environmental Working Group... I, too would like to see a chunk of the farm subsidy dollars shifted to conservation programs. This would help fund programs that protect soil, water and air quality, preserve wildlife habitat, and conserve energy and water. In my opinion, if we don't conserve what's left (pitiful as it may be) there won't be many future crops.

Update: I wrote this about mid-January 2012, and on Feb. 1 read an interesting article on this general subject by Sharon Astyk that you may wish to read. She does a great job of explaining the cost of a gallon of milk, although there's much more to the article. Click here.

Farmers against Monsanto

"On January 31, family farmers will take part in the first phase of a court case filed to protect farmers from genetic trespass by Monsanto’s GMO seed, which contaminates organic and non-GMO farmer’s crops and opens them up to abusive lawsuits. In the past two decades, Monsanto’s seed monopoly has grown so powerful that they control the genetics of nearly 90% of five major commodity crops including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and sugar beets.

In many cases farmers are forced to stop growing certain crops to avoid genetic contamination and potential lawsuits. Between 1997 and 2010, Monsanto admits to filing 144 lawsuits against America’s family farmers, while settling another 700 out of court for undisclosed amounts. Due to these aggressive lawsuits, Monsanto has created an atmosphere of fear in rural America and driven dozens of farmers into bankruptcy. Please join us in standing up for family farmers everywhere against Monsanto's abusive seed monopoly." Source

If this is an issue you can support, and have not yet added your name (they only have 55,000 so far), please go here:

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/farmersvs_monsanto/?akid=462.52716.b40Hen&rd=1&t=14

Cooking a Frog

You’ve probably heard the old saying before: "If you want to cook a frog, you can’t toss it into a pot of boiling water because it will just jump out. Instead, you put it in the water first and then slowly turn the temperature up. The frog will slowly adjust to the change until it’s too late."

I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't what's happening to the control over the foods we eat. Rather than implementing strict controls all at once, "incrementalism" makes small changes over time in an atmosphere where people are usually resistant to change. This is especially easy if you add the fear about food "safety" to the mix.

The fear about food safety is now so wide-spread that it ranks right up there with terrorism. The American Public, thanks to government and media hype, has come to believe that even our food and water is subject to a terrorist attack; therefore, we have become hypervigilant and have allowed laws to be passed that curtail our basic food freedoms. In fact, the FBI now can prosecute anyone as a terrorist if they expose animal welfare abuses taking place on factory farms like feedlots, slaughter houses or poultry houses.

Now I am not saying an attack on our food and water could not happen... surely some home-grown malcontent, or even a foreign terrorist, could find a way to poison any water supply, or any fresh produce shipment, but is it prudent to control the entire food supply (and diminish the nutrients) to the extent the government now does, or proposes to do? Where is MY choice for the chemical-free food I prefer to eat?

The Devil is in the Details. "It’s the Farm Bill that largely shapes food and agriculture policy, and — though much of it finances good programs [like food stamps and WIC ~editor] — ultimately supports the cynical, profit-at-any-cost food system that drives obesity, astronomical health care costs, ethanol-driven agriculture and more, creating further deficits while punishing the environment." (Source)

I eat fresh local fruit and vegetables from family farmers I have come to know personally. (I'm pretty sure there are no terrorists among them, nor do I believe they are out to poison me.). So why should that fresh food be subject to the same, and very expensive food packaging mechanization, chemical washing, and handling requirements for the massive produce shippers from several thousand miles away, who must contend with multiple handling of the foods and multiple storage sites of their "fresh" foods for weeks until it finally hits the shelves?

Will the next regulation require Federal testing of the produce I grow in my own garden before I am allowed to eat it?

"If you control the food supply, you control the people." ~Henry Kissinger

ps... I'm almost through ranting about adulterated food... for a while, at least. Soon it will be time to start the 2012 garden and have my own real foods to eat again!

2012... and Beyond

NASA Goddard Photo

The year 2012 should be interesting.

Many folks have an underlying (or at least partial) belief running through their subconscious mind that Nostradamus' and the Mayan "end of the World" scenarios might happen. However, most of our overt behavior indicates total disbelief not only in Doomsday predictions, but also in accepting the critical food/water/health situation worldwide. (Isn't the media wonderful?) Our changing weather patterns continue to impose hardships on many of our lives and gardens, giving credence to possible violent environmental changes that could be coming to this lovely blue planet we occupy.

Personally, I do not believe the "end of the world" will happen in December 2012. However, the environmental, economical and political changes are not only continuing, but increasing... and it could get right nasty down the road.

There is another prediction out there, proclaimed by many, that the "changes" will usher in a "thousand-year era of Peace". IMO, there is much that needs to be significantly altered before real Peace can happen.

On our food and health aspects for change, it is time for us to increase our awareness and ethical/moral responsibility beyond what the for-profit television and advertising media tell us... because ultimately our health/future Is NOT Up to Someone Else.

GMO's have proliferated simply because we didn't raise any flags in the beginning. It is our own fault. For too many years we have allowed ourselves to believe that others ("medical professionals and government officials?") know best, or at least know what they are doing. We are bombarded hundreds of times a day by subtle advertising messages indicating "they" are more educated and/or informed than we are, so the vast majority have given up individual responsibility for our own health and well-fare. Our self-inflicted ignorance has let the government (and us) buy into corporate hype of all kinds (which interestingly also put money in many, many pockets). 

Thus the many corporate tribes and alphabet government agencies motivated by... (power? greed? or something else??) have given us obesity and disease by catering to and building on a human weakness for convenience, sugar and other junk foods. We have become a nation of addicts... and we are addicted to all kinds of substances. For far too many people [including children], it is sugary beverages and junk foods, while for others it might be an escape into alcohol or drugs. But as with any addiction, we never think with 100% clarity under the influence... and will do almost anything to keep getting our "fix" in spite of what our minds know. 

As a nation, we eat more so called "food" and gain less energy (nutrition) from it all the time. The working mother eating the SAD diet (Standard American Diet) has NO energy left to prepare real food meals when she comes home from work, even if she could buy real food anymore in most places. (She says she doesn't have "time" but in reality, she also doesn't have the "energy".) So instead of having enough energy to prepare a real food meal, she barely has the energy to pick up junk fast food on the way home, or frozen boxed junk food to nuke for dinner for the family. Eating this way, she never gains a storehouse of energy for the next day, and simply repeats the process over and over, becoming more frazzled every day from lack of good nutrition. 

Adele Davis always said a food without nutrients would not support life, and her example was a loaf of factory bread left on the counter (unwrapped) for weeks. It might dry out, but it would not support any bacterial life to decompose it. If it won't even support bacterial life, how could it support life for us?? Recently someone left a McD's cheeseburger on the counter for a whole year, and nothing grew there either. It sustained no bacterial life. (Source)

Change is never easy, but for the most part it can be started in small steps. Two years ago when I changed my food intake drastically to eliminate adulterated foods all at once (including foods with added sweeteners), I thought I would starve to death during the first 2-3 weeks. It took a long time for me to learn to think outside the box and change from what I had been accustomed to eating for years, to finding real foods to eat. Then as I started feeling the increased energy every day from eating real food (and probably eliminating some built-up toxins during that time), I began to understand what sugar and chemical-laden foods do to my body.

Unfortunately over the last year, I have slowly added some adulterated foods back to my diet, and I really see the poor consequences, both in my energy levels... and my weight. The good news is that I never deviated from my commitment to eating only grass-fed meats. I'm doing much better now in avoiding chemical-laden packaged foods (thus no GMO's) but where I am still struggling is to get sugars out of my diet again. The traditional and accepted flush of sweet goodies over the holidays put me right back into sugar addiction, and I really cannot totally blame the food industry... They only make the stuff; it's my hand that lifts the cookie to my mouth. 

Then there are the sweets in other foods... "research and development teams have done studies and conducted taste panels that have found sweet sells. The more we sell sweet stuff the more people come to expect it. Sweet is found in loads of savory items. Sweet tomato sauces, crackers, salad dressings, mustards, coated chicken products, sausages, and more. Many of our fresh products are enhanced with sugar also. Butterball turkey, pumped brined pork loins, stewing hens. Our palates are being distorted by sweet." (Source)
 

Some small but positive steps:

Make a commitment to one family meal every week or two that contains only real foods. Nothing from a chemical-laden package (cookie/cake mix, packaged salad dressings, sweetened yogurt, BBQ sauce, yada, yada), no GMO's. You probably cannot escape the GMO's in the meats from factory meat animals, including chickens and their eggs, unless you can afford pastured meats... but start somewhere. No fake butters, no canola or soy oils (both GMO's), no sugar substitutes, nothing fake. I know many of the regular readers of this blog eat real foods almost exclusively... but perhaps just as many readers do not.

Make the time for a friendly email or telephone call to your local congressional representative saying you'd like to see food labels that state GMO or not, and hopefully even whether routine animal antibiotics in healthy animals were used. Tell them politely that you'd like to know what's actually in your food.

It may take years of persistence, but remember the soil in our yards is the result of eons of weathering effects on rocks that turned them into soil.

It CAN Happen Here

There is a long history of populations saying, "It can't happen here..." and then it does. There is a new food bill pending in New Zealand that takes away the human "right" to grow food and save seeds, and instead makes it a government-authorized "privilege" that can be revoked on any pretext.

I've heard for years about the freedom hazards of adopting Codex Alimentarius, which is a world-wide attempt at regulating foods, vitamins and OTC medicines/herbal medicines, and now even water. Codex is what's behind the move to take supplements off the shelves in the US and make it necessary to get a doctor's prescription for vitamins.

The spin on Codex is food safety, but I believe it is more about control pushed by BigAg, BigPharma, and BigBusiness in general. For sure, food safety is a major concern to all of us, but that phrase is used to push the buttons on an uninformed public to get legislation passed. We'll pass almost any ridiculous Law if it guarantees food safety, even with a great but hidden expense to our freedom to choose.

I get frequent email updates from the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS), along with updates from CMS.gov and and every week we move closer to full acceptance and implementation of Codex here in the US.

Here are 2 quotes from the article I read about the New Zealand Bill: 

"I read that the bill is being brought in because of the WTO [World Trade Organisation], which of course has the US FDA behind it, and of course that is influenced by big business (Monsanto and other players). It looks like this NZ food bill will pave the way to reduce the plant diversity and small owner operations in New Zealand, for example by way of controlling the legality of seed saving and trading/barter/giving away; all will be potentially illegal. The best website to read about the problems with the new bill is http://nzfoodsecurity.org".

"- The Government has created this bill to keep in line with its World Trade Organisation obligations under an international scheme called Codex Alimentarius (“Food Book”). So it has to pass this bill in one form or another." (emphasis mine)

Already in the US, new regulations about cleaning seeds (Multi-million dollar special equipment now required for each seed type) has put many non-GMO seed sellers out of business.

I just downloaded the 252 page Codex bulletin on milk. It will take a while to read and decipher because many regs are based on mandates listed elsewhere on Codex, rather than in the brochure. Typical legalese! I suspect I will find the USDA push against raw milk has a foundation somewhere in Codex. JMHO.

Admiring a Man for Standing Up

 

Photos from The Bovine

Y'know, regardless of where you stand, or even if you have no opinion on the matter, there's something admiral to be said for a man who stands firmly on his beliefs, and in the case of Ontario dairy farmer Michael Schmidt, his belief in food rights. 

Although found guilty on appeal, fined over $9,000 and placed on a year's probation, he argues raw milk has greater health benefits than pasteurized milk, and that consumers should have a right to decide what to put in their bodies. The judge at his hearing told the court, “(Mr. Schmidt) is a man of principle. He’s willing to fight for his principles. There’s a lot to admire about Mr. Schmidt.”

Michael Schmidt is hosting Handel's Messiah in his barn on December 17th.

The 99 Percent Declaration

I've been watching the growing "Occupy" movement for several weeks with some curiousity, even though there seemed to be no particular agenda. Now a Working Group that includes pro bono lawyers and university students arrested in NYC for their peaceful demonstrations, have drafted The 99% Declaration. 

I will be following this closely because among other things, it addresses the greed prevalent in corporations that affect the laws of this country via political contributions and influence, which means they affect me. (Think BigAg, BigPharma, etc.)

The Working Group wants to draws up a formal petition of grievances voted by to-be-elected representatives of all congressional districts. The US Constitution provides for a petition of a list of grievances to present to the government, but apparently by Constitutional Law only a duly elected body can legitimize a list of demands from the People. Their proposal is only a starting proposal and sample list of just demands on the government, plus how they hope to accomplish it via elected representatives.

Their posted sample proposal includes a fair tax across the board (and cutting ALL tax loopholes), eliminating the contributions (open or hidden) that buy politicians, and a host of other proposals that sound sensible to me, from the War Machine to Health Care and Jobs. 

I encourage you to read the whole declaration... it's short and to the point. Who knows, it may even gain wide-spread support!

GMO Bees?????

Photo by bucklava

Oh LawdyMercy... Monsanto is now in the bee business! They recently acquired Beeologics, LLC, an international firm dedicated to restoring bee health and protecting the future of insect pollination.

Beeologics says: "The challenges of bringing new veterinary therapeutic drugs to market are significant and require careful planning around research, development, testing, manufacturing and regulatory processes." (Source)

Monsanto says: "The expertise Beeologics has developed will enable Monsanto to further explore the use of biologicals broadly in agriculture. Monsanto will use the base technology from Beeologics as a part of its continuing discovery and development pipeline. Biological products will continue to play an increasingly important role in supporting the sustainability of many agricultural systems." (Source) 

WHAT is "sustainable" about Monsanto besides greed and profit? As if GMO's aren't bad enough, I wonder if this will turn into something like the recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) developed by Monsanto? 

"Monsanto violated federal law (despite government warnings) by promoting rBGH before its FDA approval.  

They blatantly attempted to bribe Canadian officials (who admitted it) in order to hasten their approval of rBGH. They also have an apparent conflict of interest with their regulators (FDA) in that they share the same lawyer (Michael R. Taylor of Washington, D.C. law-firm, King & Spaulding). [Taylor is a lawyer who has spent the last few decades moving back and forth between Monsanto and the FDA and USDA.~ Editor]

Monsanto and FDA have ganged up on any markets which try to label their milk and dairy products "rBGH-free" by threatening to sue (and actually suing some). The FDA and Monsanto have both lied about the existence of a test for rBGH in milk (stating that there is none). Monsanto has tried to block publication of research from British scientists on rBGH showing the hormone’s link to increased somatic cell (pus and bacteria) counts in milk as a result of mastitis. 

Monsanto is the same corporation which brought us Agent Orange and PCBs (a chemical so toxic that congress banned it in 1976)." (Source)

Food, Inc. on PBS 8/9/2011

PBS is doing an encore showing of Food, Inc. on August 9, 2011. Since it is an encore, not all stations may carry it, so check your local listings. (PBS advises to check the 2 weeks prior to Aug. 16 in case a local station chooses another date.)

Food, Inc. will be accompanied by Notes on Milk, a short variation of the 2007 feature documentary Milk in the Land: Ballad of an American Drink. Ariana Gerstein and Monteith McCollum, whose Hybrid aired on POV in 2002, take a quirky and poetic look at some lesser-known aspects of America’s favorite drink: the industry’s spiritual underpinnings, politics and the struggle of independent farmers.

Watch the Trailer for Food, Inc. here.

GMO's Strike Aagin, tacit USDA Approval?

Photo from PlantFiles by bigcityal

Just in case you thought I was giving up fighting against GMO's being forced down out throats...

Round-Up Ready Kentucky Bluegrass approval was snuck by us recently, late on a Friday afternoon while we were busy planning weekend activities. The Round-Up Ready Kentucky Bluegrass is a product of Scott's Miracle Gro.

Now, I don't necessarily care a whole lot if lawn grass is genetically modified (other than the overall environmental implications) since I don't eat grass... although cows sometimes do, so it's possibly in the milk and beef ... but there are huge implications for other human and animal food crop GMo's in the whole process.  There are now 2 grasses (Bentgrass is the other one*) that resist Round-Up. I DO worry about the GMO grass seed that will fly on the wind, and what it might do eventually to other crops, and my garden... and I worry about all that additional glyphosate (Round-Up) that will now be used on our soils which will end up running into, and contaminating, our waterways. Most of all I worry about pastured cows eating GMO grass.

Actually, the "acceptance (aka tacit approval)" of Round-Up Ready Kentucky Bluegrass opens the door for more unregulated GMO's, due to the convolutions of USDA regulations (Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology). It is much too intricate to explain here, and even difficult for me to understand with adequate explanation, which you can find here. 

It gets really involved trying to understand the 1950's era Plant Pest Act, and the 2000 Plant Protection Act which broadened the Plant Pest Act slightly, adding one more regulatory hook to the USDA’s sparse GMO-regulation toolkit. That was the “noxious weed” status... any engineered crop that threatens to go rogue in the field and become a hard-to-control weed may be regulated. Most of the data below is from here.

Scotts requested that [USDA] confirm that Kentucky bluegrass is modified without plant pest components…therefore is not a regulated article within the meaning of the current regulations.

In its July 1 response, the USDA agreed: “None of the organisms used in generating this genetically engineered (GE) glyophosphate tolerant Kentucky bluegrass…are considered to be plant pests,” so Roundup Ready bluegrass “does not meet the definition of a ‘regulated article’ and is not subject” to the Plant Protection Act. 

In other words, go forth and multiply.

Homeowners dealing with rogue Roundup Ready bluegrass may have to resort to chemicals far more toxic than Roundup. (See note below on Bentgrass Trials.)

What this whole mess really means is that the USDA has no obligation to perform environmental-impact or endangered-species analyses of new organisms in the biotech pipeline, including plants engineered as pharmaceutical substances and biofuel feedstocks.

In an email exchange, a USDA press officer confirmed that the agency would not be conducting an environmental-impact statement on Roundup Ready bluegrass—and by extension, any other crops that don’t count as plant pests or noxious weeds.

But Kimbrell (George Kimbrell, senior attorney, Center for Food Safety) made an important point: “Look, [the USDA] is a rogue agency,” he said. “It has been rebuked time and time again by the courts for its failed oversight of these crops.”

Implication: Take away the plant-pest and noxious-weed hooks and the courts can no longer intervene. The industry gets free rein to plant whatever it wants—wherever it wants. This development worries Gurian-Sherman (senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Food and Environment Program). “Will some companies still want to have the fig leaf of USDA regulation even if they’re not using plant-pest material? Probably,” he says. “But they don’t have to. It’s now their choice.”

Moreover, he adds, “the noxious-weed standard has been set so high as to be virtually meaningless.” 

The industry has begun using nonpest material to develop novel crops. “If the companies don’t use plant pests, then the USDA ostensibly doesn’t have a legal hook to regulate the crops,” he says.

The USDA notes that conventional bluegrass is already widely planted across the country without causing much harm; from there it assumes that Scotts’ engineered bluegrass won’t be a problem either, concluding that it need not be declared a “noxious weed” after all. And if it’s neither a plant pest nor a noxious weed, the USDA has no right or obligation to regulate it.  

Game, set, match to Scotts Miracle Gro.

The new regime laid out in the bluegrass announcement would “drastically weaken USDA’s regulation” of genetically modified crops.

Long story short, it means that the USDA theoretically regulates new GMO crops the same way it would regulate, say, a backyard gardener’s new crossbred squash variety. Which is to say, it really doesn’t. But that’s absurd. GM crops pose different environmental threats than their non-modified counterparts. The most famous example involves the rapid rise of Roundup Ready corn, soy, and cotton, which were introduced in the mid-late 1990s and now blanket tens of millions of acres of US farmland. Spraying all of that acreage every year with a single herbicide has given rise to a plague of Roundup-resistant “superweeds,” forcing farmers to apply more and more Roundup and also resort to other, far-more-toxic products. 

Crops that aren’t engineered to withstand an herbicide could never have created such a vexation.

*Bentgrass: In 2005, Scotts grew trial plots of its bentgrass in Oregon. It escaped the boundaries of the experimental plot and is still creating problems for homeowners miles away.
.

The Food Threat to Our Health

I don't usually post what others have written, but this is too important not to pass on in case you missed it elsewhere. I generally prefer to write about what we can do at home for ourselves to combat what the government is doing against our Health and Well-Being, but sometimes that is not enough.

Genetically Modified Crops in the Food Supply: The Threat to Your Health
by Judith McGeary, Esq. – May 9, 2011

"The case against genetically modified (GM) crops has been growing for years.  While there are no long-term studies on the health effects of eating food from GM crops, even short-term studies have raised very troubling questions.  For example, a panel of scientists in India recently reviewed studies that purported to show that GM crops modified to produce Bt were safe. The reviewers concluded that the studies did not meet international standards, did not accurately summarize the results, and “ignored toxic endpoints” that occurred in rats that were fed the GM grain for just 3 months.  The rats suffered organ and system damage to ovaries, spleens, and the immune system, and demonstrated toxic effects to the liver [L. Gallagher, BT Brinjal Event EEa: The Scope and Adequacy of the GEAC Toxicological Risk Assessment: Review of Oral Toxicity Studies in Rats (2010)].  Other studies have come to similar conclusions, namely that even a relatively short period of feeding GM foods to lab animals indicate serious potential health impacts.

Despite that, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to allow GM crops to enter our food supply without labeling, leaving the majority of Americans in the dark about the fact that almost every processed food contains ingredients from GM corn, soy, and/ or canola.


As serious as these problems are, the concerns over GM crops rose to an even higher level recently. On January 17, 2011, Dr. Don M. Huber, an internationally recognized plant pathologist and Professor Emeritus from Purdue University, sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack warning him of a previously unknown pathogen that "should be treated as an emergency."  As explained in the letter, the pathogen poses a serious threat to plant health, animal health, and potentially human health – and has been connected to GM crops engineered to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate.

“Roundup Ready” crops, as they are called, allow farmers to spray the herbicide glyphosate to kill weeds throughout the growing season.  This has two effects: it significantly increases the amount of glyphosate used, and results in glyphosate residues on the crop itself.

As outlined in Dr. Huber’s letter and subsequent materials, veterinarians first identified this organism in livestock herds experiencing extremely high rates, up to 45%, of spontaneous abortions and infertility rates of 20% and higher. The vets confirmed that the pathogen was the cause of the problem, and then searched for the source of the pathogen, ultimately finding it in the animals’ feed. The contaminated feeds were made from Roundup Ready soy, Roundup Ready corn, and crops raised for feed in fields treated with glyphosate.

The connection was then made with plant pathologists who have been working to understand the growing scope and severity of plant diseases such as Goss’ Wilt in corn and Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS) in soybeans. When examined, the new pathogen was found in very high levels in the infected crops.

Dr. Huber’s January letter urged Secretary Vilsack not to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa and to conduct research on the relationship between Roundup Ready crops, glyphosate, and this new pathogen. The USDA chose to ignore this warning and less than three weeks later approved two new GMO crops, including Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa, creating a threat to the primary forage feed crop for US livestock.

The letter, although intended to be confidential, was leaked by a third party, after which Dr. Huber gave permission for the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance and others to post it.  The now-public letter unleashed a storm of accusations and recriminations, including a quick response from Monsanto.  Yet, while Monsanto and its allies attacked the letter, they presented no evidence that contradicted it – just their own unsupported claims that circled around Dr. Huber’s statements without addressing them directly.

At the request of other scientists and European leaders, Dr. Huber wrote a second, more in-depth letter in March which can be read at the Farm and Ranch Freedom website. 

Food Democracy Now! released an exclusive 20-minute interview with Dr. Huber.  We encourage everyone to view it and share it with their friends and neighbors.  If you have trouble downloading the full video because of the file size, shorter segments of it are posted on the website of Food Democracy Now!

The FDA should impose an immediate moratorium on GM alfalfa and sugar beets."

Can someone tell me WHY the FDA doesn't put our health interests in the forefront, other than Follow the Money??