According to CSPI, FDA can stop dairy farms with drug residue violations from selling cattle for meat but the agency usually doesn’t stop the farm from selling its milk.
“Consumers have a right to know what’s in their milk, and if there are dangerous drugs in it, they need to know what FDA is doing about that,” said CSPI senior food safety attorney David Plunkett.
excepts by Dave Pell
The introduction of antibiotics dealt a serious blow to the bacteria that attacks our bodies. But it wasn’t a deadly one. And different forms of bacteria have spent the last few decades evolving. Some of these “superbugs” are now totally resistant to antibiotics, and they are basically teaching other bacteria how to resist them as well.
Bacteria have been training at this for a long, long time. I think when a lot of people took antibiotics in the ’50s and ’60s, there was a lot of talk then about “miracle drugs” and “wonder drugs” … Had we basically pushed back those evolutionary forces? Had we essentially found a way to avoid infectious disease? Well, what we’re seeing is this evolutionary process in bacteria. It’s relentless, and what happened here was [that] bacteria learned to basically teach each other to swap these enzymes and help each other learn how to beat back our best antibiotics; our last-resort antibiotics didn’t work…
70-80 percent of all antibiotics produced — certainly more than half, at a minimum — are in fact used in farm animals to get them to market quicker and bigger. As it also turns out, this continual, low-level use is a perfect way to breed resistant strains, which can then find their way into humans.
Here’s a great overview of the problem from Fresh Air’s Terry Gross and journalist David Hoffman: Antibiotics Can’t Keep Up With Nightmare Superbugs. “In the period before World War II … people that got infections, they had to cut it out. They had to cut off limbs, cut off toes, because there weren’t antibiotics. And oftentimes, when people talk about the fact that we might have to go back to a pre-antibiotic age, that’s what they mean — that a simple scrape on the playground could be fatal.”
Nutrition Non-profit Leads Protest of Dairy Adulteration Proposal
NASDAQ GLOBENEWSWIRE–Washington, DC—March, 13, 2013—According to the Weston A. Price Foundation, American consumers are crying foul over a dairy industry petition to add unlabeled artificial sweeteners to flavored milks served to school children and to many other classes of dairy products.
Numerous scientific studies point to toxic effects of aspartame, including cancer, digestive issues and memory impairment. In spite of this evidence, the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) recently submitted a petition to the FDA to hide the chemical sweetener without declaring it on ingredients labels.
The Weston A. Price Foundation and other groups are urging consumers to file comments in protest of the petition on the FDA The Weston A. Price Foundation is a nonprofit nutrition education organization.
A petition against the move, http://action.sumofus.org/a/aspartame-milk/?sub=homepage, has gathered almost 100,000 signatures.
“The integrity of our food supply is poised for another blow. By asking the FDA to alter the definition of “milk” to include chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose without full disclosure will only lead to further distrust among consumers. This is a bad idea for consumers and not a smart idea for the industry either,” explains Sally Fallon Morell, president and founder of the Weston A. Price Foundation.
While aimed principally at replacing sugar in flavored milks served to school children, the petition also asks for the right to put hidden artificial sweeteners in a host of dairy products including nonfat dried milk (always added to reduced-fat milks), yogurt, cream, half-and-half, sour cream, eggnog and whipping cream.
Researchers and holistic health advocates have warned about the toxicity of artificial sweeteners for many years:
Scientific evidence for the precautionary principle can be found on PubMed.com, a respected scientific database. Here a just a few of the representative studies:
A scientific study published in the European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences. 2012 Dec;16(15):2092-101, Studies on the effects of aspartame on memory and oxidative stress in brain of mice, found impaired memory performance and increased brain oxidative stress by repeated aspartame administration.
In May, 2010, The International Journal of Genomics published a study In Vivo Cytogenetic Studies on Aspartame where scientists observed significant chromosomal aberrations in the bone marrow cells of mice following exposure to aspartame. Because of the genotoxicity they found, scientists advised caution when using aspartame in food and beverages as a sweetener.
A Swiss study with mice and rats, published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine in December 2010 found Aspartame (APM) exposure is especially harmful for pre-term fetus, rats of both genders, and male mice. Scientists found APM to be a carcinogenic agent in multiple sites (liver and lung) in mice and rats and that its effects are increased when exposure starts from prenatal life.
How to Register Public Comments:
http://www.westonaprice.org/2013-action-alerts/dairy-industry-petitions-fda-to-approve-aspartame
URL for Public Comments:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FDA-2009-P-0147-0012
Dairy Industry FDA Petition:
The Weston A. Price Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nutrition education foundation with the mission of disseminating accurate, science-based information on diet and health. Named after nutrition pioneer Weston A. Price, DDS, author of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, the Washington, DC-based Foundation publishes a quarterly journal for its 15,000+ members, supports 572 local chapters worldwide and hosts a yearly international conference. The Foundation phone number is (202) 363-4394, www.westonaprice.org, info@westonaprice.org.
Media Contact: Kimberly Hartke, 703-860-2711, cell 703-675-5557, press@westonaprice.org
Tell President Obama and the FDA you won’t eat GMO salmon!
Right now President Obama and bureaucrats at the Food and Drug Administration are preparing to unleash genetically engineered salmon on the market. After years of controversial regulatory review, this past week the Obama administration cleared a final hurdle for AquaBounty’s GMO salmon to be approved at any moment.On Friday, December 21st, 2012, FDA bureaucrats declared that AquaBounty’s GMO AquaAdvantage® salmon poses no “significant” risk to the environment. This recent FDA decision comes on top of the agency’s 2010 declaration that the GMO salmon were safe for humans to eat, despite no independent long-term studies. Once again, the FDA is putting corporate science over public health.
If approved, AquaBounty’s GMO salmon would be the first genetically engineered animal to be sold for human consumption and could appear in restaurants and grocery stores as early 2013.
Right now there is an open 60-day public comment period at the FDA before any approval can move forward and we need your help today to get as many comments as possible.
Already biotech cheerleaders are hailing the FDA’s recent announcement as a first of many new approvals to come, which means that more genetically engineered, transgenic animals could be approved in the near future.
In case you haven’t heard, the AquaBounty GMO salmon has been genetically engineered in laboratories to allegedly grow twice as fast as wild salmon, which the Massachusetts-based company hopes its patented mutant fish will replace as a new staple at sushi bars, seafood restaurants and supermarkets across America.
Straight from the pages of a science fiction novel, AquaBounty has inserted the genes of a Chinook salmon growth hormone and an “on-off” switch from the eelpout, into the eggs of Atlantic salmon, to make the GMO salmon grow faster than wild or farmed salmon.
Despite the company’s claims, critics remain skeptical that genetically engineered fish has any real benefits.
Once Again the FDA Ignores Serious Risks and Environmental Concerns
While AquaBounty claims its GMO salmon will only be raised in indoor, land-based facilities, environmentalists have real concerns if any accident were to take place. Scientific studies show that the release of just 60 GMO salmon could eradicate wild Atlantic salmon populations of 60,000 fish in less than 40 fish generations.
In an effort to overcome this, AquaBounty has built egg production facilities on Prince Edward Island in Canada and will then ship them to an indoor facility in Panama where they will be grown out. Once the GMO salmon are grown to maturity, they will be sold unlabeled in U.S. markets, if the Obama administration gets its way.
It is due to AquaBounty’s promise to only raise the GMO salmon in indoor, land-based pens that the Obama FDA has now given the mutant fish a thumbs up with its recently published Environmental Assessment (EA), claiming that the GMO salmon poses “no significant impact” on the environment.
In addition to land-based pens, AquaBounty claims it will only raise “sterile females”, but this is factually false since tests show that up to 5% of the GMO salmon are able to reproduce.
At the same time, leaked internal emails from the U.S. Department of Interior’s Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) reveal that the governments own scientists are dubious about the FDA’s own assessment.
In an email to a coworker, FWS geneticist Denise Hawkins wrote in 2010:
“I also agree … that using [genetically sterile] fish is not foolproof. Maybe [the FDA] should watch Jurassic Park.”
In addition, Hawkins criticized the FDA’s fantastical assessment of the ability of these GMO salmon to survive outside of the intended indoor pens, saying, “There is no data to support the claims of low survival in the event of escape, which… is a big concern.”
How will GMO salmon impact human health?
Because no independent, long-term scientific studies of AquaBounty’s patented salmon have been conducted, the human health impacts of GMO salmon are not currently known. Shockingly, the FDA is relying on scant scientific documents provided by AquaBounty itself. In fact, the FDA’s own assessment AquaBounty’s studies to determine whether GMO salmon are safe for human consumption states that the studies contain “technical flaws” and provide “insufficient data”.
For two of the studies submitted, AquaBounty used sample sizes so small that they have no scientific credibility, with only 12 fish tested for one study, while another study on possible allergic reactions in humans involved only 6 fish! Despite this scant evidence, the FDA is currently on the verge of approving the company’s GMO salmon.
Serious questions remain about eating fish engineered to grow faster and how genetically manipulated traits can impact human health, especially that of our most vulnerable populations such as pregnant mothers and children.
Please share this alert with friends you know who may be concerned, we need all the comments we can get and every voice counts!
Thanks for participating in food democracy,
Dave, Lisa and the Food Democracy Now! team
Sources:
1. “White House Reverses Itself, Lifts Political Block on FDA Approval of GMO Salmon”, Forbes, 12/21/2012
2. “Genetically Engineered Salmon: Environmental Documents, AquAdvantage Salmon Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact” Food and Drug Administration (FDA), FDA.gov
3. “GE Animals Regulated Under New Animal Drug Provisions”, FDA.gov website, FDA Releases Final Guidance on Genetically Engineered Animals, January 15, 2009.
4. “Aqua Bounty Biotech Salmon OK to Eat-FDA Staff,” Reuters, September 3, 2010.
5. “Modified Salmon is Safe, FDA Says”, The New York Times, September 3, 2010
6. “Mutant Salmon Coming to a Kitchen Table Near You”, Fast Company, July 12, 2010
On December 21, 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released an Environmental Assessment (EA) with a “Finding of No Significant Impact” on the controversial AquaBounty AquaAdvantage transgenic salmon. The FDA action is widely viewed as confirmation that the Obama Administration is prepared to approve shortly the first genetically engineered (GE) animal intended for human consumption in the face of widespread opposition.
FDA says escape is unlikely and that the fish pose “no impact” to the environment. But each year millions of farmed salmon escape, out-competing wild populations for resources and straining ecosystems. Any approval of GE salmon would represent a serious threat to the survival of native salmon populations, many of which have already suffered severe declines related to salmon farms and other man-made impacts. Additionally, the human health impacts of eating GE fish, which would be the first-ever GE food animal, are entirely unknown.
Sign the petition to tell the Food and Drug Administration not to approve GE salmon AND, if the Obama Administration insists on approving these genetically engineered fish, it should require the fish to be labeled!
The public has only 60 days to comment on this misguided and dangerous action..
“How much longer should we defer to a governmental agency that has consistently failed to perform its duties? The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is charged with protecting the American food supply, yet not a week goes by without another food-related health scare seizing headlines across the nation: listeria in pasteurized milk; spinach contaminated with E. coli; and potentially unsafe meat from “downer” cattle (animals which are sick or injured and unable to stand).”
“These outbreaks are the results of decades of USDA policy decisions which favor corporations and industrial agriculture over small family farms and local production. Intensive animal and crop operations can lead to sick animals and tainted vegetables entering the food chain, and regulations which would prevent these incidents are often overlooked when corporate interests are at stake.” –Linda Faillace
[Vimeo 16513455]
A film by by Kristin Canty
Featuring Joel Salatin, Jackie Stowers, Mark McAfee, Linda Faillace and Eric Wagoner
Farmageddon
123 Street Ave.
Somerville, MA 02144
Eli Lilly wants you to get less information from your food label—and Ohio is defending that view in court!
Some dairy farmers choose to use an artificial growth hormone (recombinant bovine growth hormone or rbGH), produced and sold by Eli Lilly, to make cows produce more milk.
Unfortunately, rBGH has numerous harmful side effects for cows, and has been linked to a wide range of health problems for consumers.
But many retailers, as well as all organic dairies, sell milk products from cows that are not injected with synthetic growth hormones. They tell you that on the label, so you can choose the “no artificial growth hormones” or “rbGH-free” if you prefer it.
Last year, Ohio issued a rule that will make this distinction more difficult for Ohio shoppers to find, and the state is defending the rule in an expensive court proceeding..
Subject: Fax Gov. Strickland: Stop Muzzling Ohio’s Organic Dairy Farmers
Dear Friend,
Ever since last year, Ohio dairy producers have been threatened by an onerous “emergency” regulation that muzzles their ability to communicate with their customers.
Specifically, the milk labeling rule, issued in May 2008, prohibits dairies from labeling their milk as “rbGH-free” and adds other unnecessary bureaucratic requirements that are getting in the way of dairy companies that want to tell you that their milk is produced without synthetic growth hormones.
Fortunately, Governor Strickland has the power to rescind this order unilaterally — and end the costly litigation brought by organic farmers challenging this unconstitutional infringement on their free speech rights.
I just sent Governor Strickland a fax asking him to act within his authority and immediately rescind his executive order. Please have a look and take action.
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/ohio_milk/?r_by=-2078349-G2A5xBx&rc=paste
What is rBST or rBGH?
Bovine somatotropin (BST) is a protein hormone naturally produced in the pituitary glands of cattle. Monsanto developed a recombinant version, rBST, by using a genetically engineered E. coli bacteria. Sold under the brand name “Posilac,” it is injected into cows to boost milk output in the short term. This practice is coming under increasing scrutiny. rBST is also known as rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone).
How does rBST affect the animals that receive this drug?
Posilac packaging lists many possible side effects of the drug, including reduced pregnancy rates, visibly abnormal milk, hoof disorders and a need for more drug treatments for health problems. Cows treated with rBST face a nearly 25% increase in the risk of clinical mastitis, a 40% reduction in fertility, and 55% increase risk of lameness. (The Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, 2003)
Why is increased chance of infections like mastitis a problem?
In addition to the needless suffering of the animal, increased incidence of infections could lead to increased use of antibiotics and an increased risk of antimicrobial residues in milk and to antibiotic resistant bacteria. (“Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotropin,” issued March 15-16, 1999, p.16, and available from The European Commission—Food Safety.)
The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that “Decreasing unnecessary or inappropriate antibiotic use, in humans and animals, will decrease the resistance pressure on the treated organisms. Ongoing efforts. . .are needed. . .so that the efficacy of antibiotics is preserved as long as possible.”
Is rBST allowed for use in other countries?
The product is already prohibited in Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and in the 27 countries of the European Union.
How does rBST affect milk production?
rBST is known to increase the levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in cows, which can lead to increased IGF-1 in milk. (“Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotropin,” issued March 15-16, 1999, and available from The European Commission—Food Safety.)
What are the concerns about IGF-1 in milk?
Many studies have noted some links associated between IGF-1 levels and increased risk of cancer, especially breast and prostate cancer. (Holmes, Pollak, et. al. “Dietary Correlates of Plasma Insulin-like Growth Factor I and Insulin-like Growth Factor Binding Protein 3 Concentrations” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention, Sept. 2002, p. 852-861; Chan, Stampfer, et. al.“Plasma Insulin-like Growth Factor-I and Prostate Cancer Risk: A Prospective Study,” Science, January, 1998, p 563-566; Yu, Jin, et. al, Insulin-like Growth Factors and Breast Cancer Risk in Chinese Women, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention, August 2002, p. 705-712.)
What other potential problems have come up?
Studies of animals exposed to rBST raise concerns about potential changes in milk protein that could lead to allergies. (“Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotropin,” issued March 15-16, 1999, p. 17, and available from The European Commission—Food Safety.)
What do milk and milk product labels need to say about not using rBST?
Labels must be truthful and not misleading. To avoid misleading consumers, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance from February 1994 suggests a label statement such as: “from cows not treated with rbST” or other truthful description.
As recently as August 2007, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and FDA rejected a request for new restrictions on rBST marketing claims at the federal level. The FTC stated “food companies may inform consumers in advertising, as in labeling, that they do not use rBST.”
How does this issue compare with other types of truthful labeling statements?
Even if there is not currently any laboratory test that can distinguish between milk produced with rBST, and milk produced without rBST, other food labels regularly include truthful statements that are not verified by laboratories. Examples include: state or country of origin, type of water, such as spring or well, specific names of wines, such as Riesling, that must have at least 90% Riesling grapes, and statements about the age of products such as cheese or whiskey. It’s not right to single out dairy as requiring a lab test for truthful statements about production practices.
You can find more information at the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility – Campaign for Safe Food.
(@marionnestle)
The Wall Street Journal reports that since 2006, Nestlé has consistently refused to allow FDA investigators to look at their safety records. The company doesn’t have to. All those pesky regulatory requirements are voluntary.
(The potential for) Death By Chocolate takes on a whole new meaning
Nestlé Unit Denied FDA Requests
By JANE ZHANG
The Nestlé USA plant at the center of a federal probe into an E. coli outbreak involving cookie dough refused to give inspectors access to pest-control records, environmental-testing programs and other information, according to newly released inspection reports covering the past five years.
In a September 2006 visit, for example, managers at the Danville, Va., plant refused to allow a Food and Drug Administration inspector to review consumer complaints or inspect its program designed to prevent food contamination. The inspector found dirty equipment and “three live ant-like insects” on a ledge but nothing severe enough to give the plant a failing grade.
A year earlier, officials at the Nestlé plant presented another FDA inspector with a list of things it wouldn’t do. “Among these are the refusal to review the firm’s consumer complaint file, refusal to permit photography, refusal to sign affidavits or receipts and refusal to provide specific information on interstate commerce,” the inspector wrote.
View Full Image
Getty Images
Cookie-dough production at a Nestlé USA plant was suspended last week.
Spotlights Consumer Attitudes on Food Products in Light of Outbreaks and Recalls
Armonk, NY — – 24 Jun 2009: A new IBM (NYSE: IBM) study reveals that less than 20 percent of consumers trust food companies to develop and sell food products that are safe and healthy for themselves and their families. The study also shows that 60 percent of consumers are concerned about the safety of food they purchase, and 63 percent are knowledgeable about the content of the food they buy.
The survey of 1,000 consumers in the 10 largest cities nationwide shows that consumers are increasingly wary of the safety of food purchased at grocery stores, and their confidence in – and trust of – food retailers, manufacturers and grocers is declining.
“clean, safe, wholesome and truthfully labeled”
Friday, June 26, 2009
“Most people don’t know that the chicken they eat is laced with arsenic. The ice water or coffee they enjoy with their chicken may also be infused with arsenic. If they live on or near a farm, the air they breathe may be infected with arsenic dust as well.
Why do our chicken, our water and our air contain arsenic? Because in the United States, most major poultry producers add an arsenic compound known as roxarsone to their chicken feed. Inorganic arsenic is a Class A carcinogen that has been linked to heart disease, diabetes and declines in brain function. Recent scientific findings show that most Americans are routinely exposed to between three and 11 times the Environmental Protection Agency’s recommended safety limit.
The poultry industry has been using the feed additive roxarsone — purportedly to fight parasites and increase growth in chickens — since the Food and Drug Administration approved it in 1944. Turns out that the arsenic additive promotes the growth of blood vessels in chicken, which makes the meat appear pinker and more attractive in its plastic wrap at the grocery store, but does little else. The arsenic additive does the same in human cells, fueling a growth process known as angiogenesis, a critical first step in many human diseases such as cancer…”
GM Corn, Arsenic, Contaminated Chinese Wheat Gluten, Antibiotics. What's in your chicken?
Warning: Chemicals in the packaging, surfaces or contents of many products may cause long-term health effects, including cancers of the breast, brain and testicles; lowered sperm counts, early puberty and other reproductive system defects; diabetes; attention deficit disorder, asthma and autism. A decade ago, the government promised to test these chemicals. It still hasn’t.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel recently published the results of their investigation into the emerging BPA scandal. Highlights include:
Somebody certainly ought to.
“…During weekly Tuesday gatherings at the Jane Addams Hull-House Museum in Chicago, Mr. Kass hosted “Rethinking Soup,” which he described as “a communal event where we will eat delicious, healthy soup and have fresh, organic conversation about many of the urgent social, cultural, economic and environmental food issues that we should be addressing.”
Sam Kass
In May, over a meal of locally-produced beef and barley soup, Mr. Kass lamented the sorry state of the National School Lunch Program, which provides low-cost or free lunches to schoolchildren. He noted that what gets served up to kids is influenced by government agricultural subsidies. As a result, he says, meals served to students are low in vegetables and disproportionately high in fat, additives, preservatives and high-fructose corn syrup…”
So, Secretary Vilsack, please do let us know what you intend to do about this, and when.
The Organic Consumers Fund, Organic Consumers Association’s partner for legislative and electoral advocacy, has a new graduate student intern, Chantal Wei-Ying Clement, who is working on our Appetite for a Change campaign, lobbying Congress for healthy local and organic food to be included in the Child Nutrition Act. Read Chantal’s first report reviewing the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations for updating the school lunch and breakfast programs. What changes would you make to school food? Write to Congress.
By the way, how many children of US senators and representatives do you think participate in the public school lunch program?
The Daily Texan – Austin juicery meets legal battle on pasteurization
The Daily Texan
Austin juicery meets legal battle on pasteurizationMohini Madgavkar
Daily Texan Staff
Published: Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Updated: Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Austin-based juicery Good Flow Honey & Juice Co. has halted production after an order from the Food and Drug Administration shut down the company’s East Austin manufacturing center Friday.
Good Flow Honey & Juice Co. got its start more than 25 years ago, selling hand-squeezed juice and honey harvested from its own bees. The Crofut family, which started the business, made a name for itself with unorthodox flavors such as Spirulina and Pineapple-Beet and its claim for making “homemade juice.”
Unlike most commercial juicers, Good Flow does not use pasteurization, a process that uses heat to kill microorganisms in juice and other beverages, in production.
Good Flow co-founder Judy Crofut said the company asked the FDA for an exemption from pasteurization mandates placed upon commercial juice producers because the company produces and distributes locally and delivers its product within 24 hours. “We have all our own processes in place to ensure that it’s good, safe juice,” Crofut said. “Pasteurization kills everything, all the enzymes that allow you to digest your food, so that was a big interest of ours.”
Crofut said that in 2006, the FDA retracted the exemption that allowed Good Flow to operate as a juice bar that sells directly to its customers and therefore, avoid pasteurization.
After a lengthy legal battle that threatened to shut down Good Flow several times in the past two years, Crofut said a court order Friday has forced them to suspend juice production until the company can comply with FDA pasteurization standards.
Some businesses throughout Austin that carry Good Flow’s products, including Wheatsville Food Co-op, Whole Foods Market and the UT pharmacy, as well as restaurants such as Kerbey Lane Cafe, said the convenience of direct delivery from a local juice bar will be difficult to replace. The drinks are particularly popular with students, said Caffé Medici manager Patrick Pierce.
“Once school started up, we started blowing through Good Flow,” Pierce said. “We do about 30 [bottles] twice a week, so about 60 a week.”
Kerbey Lane Cafe employee Phillip Bachus said Good Flow’s processes appeal to Austinites.
“I think people really like that it’s local,” Bachus said. “It supports your community, and it’s a lot better to have a gallon of orange juice from two miles away than from five states.” But Bachus said he recognized that problems could be associated with unpasteurized juice.
“There’s never been one single issue ever with Good Flow with any kind of medical thing, but I know that we’ve never served it to kids,” Bachus said. Crofut said Good Flow will continue to sell honey until it can reopen the juice business. “We’re going to call the City of Austin and see what we have to do to open this place as a retail outlet,” Crofut said, adding that the company hopes to reopen on a larger scale in compliance with FDA regulations.