Labeling Truth Or Fiction
Labeling truth or fiction
.
Our government has set up several levels of institutional oversight and involvement in all industries to create the guise for the end consumer to feel at ease when they part with their money for goods produced in the USA. When it comes to the food we grow and eat there are several institutions arranged to spend our tax dollars on our protection and oversight
· USDA –The US Department of Agriculture (sets organic standards)
· FDA- The Food and Drug Administration
· EPA- Environmental Protection Agency
I listed the agencies in order of importance. The USDA is the top of the tier and like any good top dog you set up several advisory boards that are tasked to provide you with information and guidance as it pertains to laws and guidelines you need to establish. Basically it is the best way to pass the buck. When it comes to food labels the USDA has set up expert panels who advise them on label laws. Flavors and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA). FEMA is a panel of scientific experts who are in the industry of flavors and extractions and are to remain independent in their advice to the USDA as it pertains to language to be used on food labeling of all products including organic. This link is a PDF of one of their requests http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5061541 The Organic food supply and accompanying products are now a double digit billion dollar industry growing 20 % per year review this link to learn more about the labeling deceptions http://farmwars.info/?p=4913, http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5088008
We live in the age of global trading , so as not to be left out in 1992 the European Community (EU) developed organic standards and a certification similar to the one created by the USDA. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) One wonders if they had to pay Apple for the rights to use that acronym.
IFOAM has provisions for their standards to qualify for Codex Alimentarius which was set up by the World Health Organization and the Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (WHO/FAO). Codex Alimentarius is the internationally accepted food safety standard for all food products traded worldwide. Italy is the only country in the EU that has banned the use of GMO seeds for growing and will not allow GMO vegetables to be sold within its boarders
Pesticides
These are and nonorganic chemicals used to eliminate or mitigate natural organisms that are present in farming crops and livestock that can affect end yields. There are four commonly used types of pesticides that are readily used on farms worldwide.
· Insecticides (insects)
· Herbicides (weeds and other plant life)
· Rodenticides ( rodents)
· Fungicides (fungi, mold, mildew
Monsanto thanks to our government administrators is now at the helm at the USDA and FDA http://geneticallyengineeredfoodnews.com/gmo-and-ge-food-related-videos/obama-appoints-monsanto-shill-tom-vilsack-to-usda-chief, http://networkedblogs.com/lMhWu herbicides are the most widely used, thanks to Monsanto. Genetically placed (GMO) herbicides and insecticides are now in seeds thus to allow even more application of herbicides onto crops. 1 billion tons of pesticides are used in the USA every year.
According to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the average American child between the ages of six and eleven carries four times the acceptable level of pesticides called organophosphates (which are known to cause nerve damage).12 Scientists studying the effects of chemical pesticides have found that exposure to small doses of these toxins during the fetal stage and childhood can cause long-term damage.
The grain production grown worldwide, 37% outside of the USA goes to livestock feed. 66% of the grain grown in the USA goes to livestock feed.
Multinational meat producers who have affiliated themselves with the farmers producing the grains have created massive factory farm operations who solely rely on pesticides in order to assure crop yields and keep operational overhead cost low. Buying doing such they are defying farming common sense in order to keep supply up and keep commodity price low. By doing such they have not taken into account that mother nature constantly adapts therefore weeds and insects have become immune to the chemicals and all the while the farmer is polluting his/her water shed and causing their land to become fallow thus totally dependent upon chemicals. Since this is common place along comes genetically modified crops which are plants bred with the pesticides contained inside their genetic makeup. Some are bred to take highly potent application of herbicisdes and pesticisides thus perpetuating the fallow land outcome. Since the majority of these crops are fed to livestock the chemical resides build up within the fatty tissues of the given animal, which eventually ends up on your plate.
This might make one want to become vegetarian, but the most exposure one can have to pesticide is through commercially produced produce.
You might think that all this information would affect the people who regulate pesticides. Well the daisy chain works like this, the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) establishes the tolerances or maximum residue level of pesticide which can safely remain in or on food. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible to set up and oversee systems that monitor the pesticide levels in produce and vegetable food system. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is supposed to set up oversight systems surveying pesticide residues in meat, eggs, and dairy products… Knowing this one should feel completely at ease that big brother is taking good care of you and your family…well, the FDA and USDA monitoring systems are based solely upon the EPA’s tolerance levels. The EPA’s tolerance levels are established based upon maximum residue levels(as if you bottle fed pesticides to your livestock and or produce) therefore the methods employed for testing only look at effects of high dose exposure. There is no research done on low dose levels of exposure, nor are the tests designed to look a multi-pesticide chemical exposure, rather they look at each chemical singularly. In today’s world it is irresponsible to not setup mechanisms for testing low dose exposure to hundreds of chemicals which is more conclusive of a real life situation. Is this irresponsible or is purposeful planning?
Looking at labels for meats (beef, lamb, poultry)
All Natural: As defined by the USDA, “Natural” or “ All Natural” means the meat has been minimally processed and contains no preservatives or artificial ingredients. This applies strictly to meat after it has been processed, but it does allow for all meats to be dipped or sprayed with a chemical disinfectant bath during processing to try to reduce E. Coli on the carcass to the level allowed by the FDA. Now the use of Natural or All Natural does not exclude meats that have been raised with feed-grade antibiotics or growth hormone implants or animals sent to be raised on feedlots.
Organic: Meat that carries the USDA organic logo has to meet the department’s standards. These standards prohibit the use of growth hormones, antibiotic, and genetically modified feed, and animal byproducts. What the label does not say is that the organic standard does not require a grass- only diet! The animal can still be fed grain to fatten off the animal. Studies have shown that corn and soy feeds inhibit thyroid function in animals and cause weight gain.
Pasture Finished: this does not mean that the animal is left in a grass filled pasture to fed all it means is that the animal raiser has to provide access to pasture all the being allowed to keep the animal on a grain based diet. Animals like people are creatures of habit and grow to like certain tastes and if the animal has a choice between grain and grass they choose the grain.
Grass-fed: USDA states that grass fed animals must have “access” to grass and pasture during its life and that the animal must get the majority of its nutrients from grass. There are no restrictions to the use of antibiotics, hormones, or pesticides and this program is voluntary, which allows a producer to use the term grass-fed on the label of their product without any verification by the USDA.
On January 7, 1998, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established exemptions for the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the biochemicals "glutamic acid" and "gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA)" in or on all food commodities when applied as a plant growth and crop yield enhancer in accordance with good agricultural practices. On that date, or shortly thereafter, the EPA granted the unconditional registration of AuxiGro WP (EPA File Symbol 70810-R) containing the two new active ingredients "GABA" and "Glutamic Acid" (PC Codes 30802 and 374350, respectively) for use as a growth enhancer for certain food crops and ornamentals. The exemptions and registration were granted to Auxein Corporation, Lansing, Michigan.
By the year 2009, MSG could be found in and/or on fresh fruits, nuts, grains, and vegetables. There was no food crop that we know of that had not been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for treatment with MSG.
In 2010, the EPA registration of AuxiGro and glutamic acid were not renewed.
MSG used on crops grown in California
In May, 1999, spraying MSG on wine grapes (calling the spray a fertilizer) was approved by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). Steven D. Wong, Branch Chief, Agricultural Commodities and Regulatory Services told us that there was no demonstration that use according to label directions would present a significant health hazard to workers, consumers of products grown with the aid of the MSG-containing product, or to the general public. To have a product approved for use as a fertilizer in California, a company need do little more than make application.
In April, 2000, and again in July, 2001, spraying MSG on wine grapes (calling it a fungicide) was approved by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). Barry Cortez, Branch Chief, CDPR, first told us that the CDPR would only turn down a product if it appeared to be ineffective, and AuxiGro didn't appear to be ineffective.
By 2009, unrestricted use of monosodium glutamate (called L-glutamate) and AuxiGro had been approved for use on all agricultural products.
In 2009, California registration of AuxiGro lapsed. In 2010, the CDPR registration of AuxiGro and glutamic acid were not renewed.
Auxigro and Colony Collapse Disorder:
The following is related to MSG, and is crucial to understanding why exactly we CANNOT assume all items derived from foods are always safe:
In 1997, a company called Auxein Corporation, created in 1994, filed to get permission from the EPA for a growth enhancing crop spray. It was called Auxigro. The mixture contained an apparently simple mixture of food-derived products: 29% pure free glutamic acid (the active part of MSG), hydrolyzed casein (milk protein) and GABA - another substance found in foods. The EPA, because the ingredients used had GRAS status or were already in foods, the EPA granted waivers endocrine testing. It also granted Auxigro an EXEMPTION from pesticide testing. The petition was filed in 1997, the waivers were granted in 1998 and after being introduced for sale in 1999, Auxigro was used on potatoes, strawberries, and broccoli. In 2001, Auxein became Emerald BioAgriculture and by June 2002, sold Auxigro for use on California tomatos, almonds, grapes, onions, and all stone fruit including apricots, cherries, plums, nectarines, peaches, and prunes. It was sprayed on wine grapes in California as well. The following crops were advocated for its use: almonds, apples, avocado, broccoli, cherries, corn, grapefruit, grapes, lime beans, mangoes, melons, onions, peaches, plums, peppers, pineapple, potatoes, snap beans and tomatoes. Emerald BioAgriculture also touted its use for corn silage and sod and turf applications. Mexico, Canada, Spain, and Turkey also sold this crop spray. By 2004, Auxigro was highly touted in agri-biotech magazines.
In October 2006, in North America, the place where Auxigro was first sold - alarm bells sounded. Reports came in that 30%-90% of honeybees were simply leaving their hives. Colony Collapse Disorder was deemed an official threat to our food supply.
Early 2007, reports surfaced from Europe. Colony Collapse Disorder was now affecting hives there as well.
But the unusual thing was this - the bees didn't die off - the worker bees simply ... left.
December, 2007 - the company that made Auxigro, quietly did not renew their license.
June of 2008, hives are beginning to recover from CCD, and numbers are increasing again.
This would all seem like an interesting coincidence and fodder for conspiracy theorists, and also the plot for a new movie, HOWEVER, we at MSGTruth would like to point to some actual science that would explain exactly HOW Auxigro could cause CCD all by it's lonesome.
Auxigro was tested for neither ENDOCRINE effects nor PESTICIDE effects. We suspect it affected BOTH. Pheromones cause endocrine and behavioural changes throughout the animal kingdom. But in the case of bees, pheromones are CRUCIAL. There is one particularly important pheromone that is released by the Nasonoff gland of the queen bee when she feels threatened. It is typically used by the queen bee before she has mated. It REPELS the worker bees - which is exactly the behavior seen in CCD. The worker bees abandon their queen.
Here's the problem: the pheromone in question, o-aminoacetophenone, which repels worker bees, isn't just made by the queen bee. It isn't made only by bees, in fact. It is a component found in some foods. Like stale dry milk. Since Auxigro was not made for direct human consumption there is a very high probability that o-aminoacetophenone was present in Auxigro. The fact that Auxigro was not tested for endocrine affects suggests that this was a pure case of agri-chemical arrogance and bio-chemical ignorance. The makers of Auxigro didn't realize that their product would cause CCD because they, like the EPA, ASSUMED since MILK is safe for humans, that dried processed milk powder would be safe for EVERY creature on the planet.