Showing posts with label food industry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food industry. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Obama Administration Backwards On Food Safety


by Wenonah Hauter
 
Recently, with Obama re-election posters blanketing the audience at the Democratic National Convention and Republicans mocking Obama’s campaign slogan, the word of the moment was Forward. But when it comes to food safety, this Administration is stuck in reverse. The 56-page 2012 Democratic Party Platform included no mention of food safety or the President’s monumental signing of the Food Safety Modernization Act.

Even more alarming are the Administration’s proposed set of rules for the inspection of poultry that would take us back to the days of Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle.” That proposal would turn over key inspection duties to the poultry companies so that they can police themselves and allow them to increase line speeds in chicken plants from the current 35 birds-per-minute to to 175 birds-per-minute.

That’s right — one USDA inspector will have ONE THIRD OF A SECOND to inspect each bird to make sure that it did not have an animal disease, fecal contamination, tumors, improperly removed intestines or feathers before it is dipped in a chemical soup meant to kill microbial pathogens such as salmonella and campylobacter. A Food & Water Watch analysis of the proposal’s pilot program reveals large numbers of defects — including feathers, bile and feces — were routinely missed when company employees instead of USDA inspectors performed inspection tasks.

This proposal is reminiscent of “The Jungle” not only due to the “ick” factor behind improperly regulated and supervised meat production, but also because of the little consideration given to worker safety in these poultry slaughterhouses. The modern-day Jurgis Rudkus faces many of the same issues as those he faced 100 years ago. Even at current line speeds, poultry workers face serious safety issues. Musculoskeletal diseases, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, caused by repetitive motions in poultry processing are rampant among these workers. Occupational epidemiologists have begun to publish studies that describe anecdotal evidence of the occupational diseases suffered by plant workers, but long-term study is needed to evaluate how the conditions on these poultry slaughterhouses and the demands placed on workers impact their safety and health.

Is the Obama Administration planning to do that before it implements the new inspection system? No. Instead, it will conduct a study in one poultry facility over a three and a half year period to determine whether any changes are required to mitigate safety concerns, but it will not wait for the results of that study before plowing ahead with the new inspection program.

The USDA will save $90 million over a three-year period by eliminating 800 USDA inspector positions and the industry stands to add to its bottom line $260 million per year by being able to increase production and not face as many regulatory requirements. So the proposal is a boon for a handful of giant poultry processing corporations and budget hawks but concern for the health and safety of eaters and workers has been left in the scrap pile.

Mr. President, if you really want to improve food safety, you need to go to Congress to get the authority to hold the poultry industry accountable. What your Administration is proposing is counter-intuitive. Handing over the reins of inspection to the agribusiness barons is not going to help consumers. It certainly will not help their employees. This proposal may have poultry whizzing forward on slaughter lines at break-neck speeds, but it is a big step backward for the safety of our food supply and could put thousands of workers and all Americans who eat chicken in danger.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

US farmlands to be carpet-bombed with Agent Orange chemical if Dow petition approved

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Tuesday, December 27, 2011

(NaturalNews) A key chemical of one of the most horrifying elements of the Vietnam War -- Agent Orange -- may soon be unleashed on America's farmlands. Considered by world nations to be a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" (WMD), Agent Orange was dropped in the millions of gallons on civilian populations during the Vietnam War in order to destroy foliage and poison North Vietnamese soldiers. The former president of the Vietnamese Red Cross, Professor Nhan, described it as, "...a massive violation of human rights of the civilian population, and a weapon of mass destruction."

A key chemical in that weapon -- 2,4-D -- is just months away from being dropped on agricultural land across the United States. Dow AgroSciences--which along with DuPont and Monsanto the devil is heavily invested in genetically engineered crops--has petitioned the U.S. government to deregulate a variety of GE corn that's resistant to 2,4-D, which comprises 50% of the recipe of Agent Orange.

If the petition is approved by Washington, it would turn America's corn fields into chemical warfare zones targeted for mass pesticide poisoning with 2,4-D chemicals. The corn, of course, would be immune to 2,4-D, so it would uptake the chemical and transport it right into the structure of the corn kernels, creating "Agent Orange corn bombs" that would be chemically unleashed when consumed by human beings.

This is just the latest example of how industrial chemical giants and GMO companies of the world are committing acts of genocide against innocents. The introduction of 2,4-D-resistant GE corn is, essentially, an act of war against humanity.


Food crops sprayed with chemical weapons

Agent Orange, which contains roughly 50% 2,4-D, is also cited in numerous war crimes lawsuits. Even the BBC has reported on it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3...

The use of such chemicals on civilian targets is a violation of the 1907 Hague Convention, the 1927 Geneva Convention, and the 1949 Geneva Convention (http://www.iadllaw.org/en/node/353).

The International Tribunal of Conscience in Support of the Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange has published a document briefly describing the war crimes committed by the U.S. government in its use of Agent Orange: http://www.iadllaw.org/files/charge...

That document states:
The chemical warfare waged by the United States against Vietnam though the use of Agent Orange and other dioxin laced chemicals from 1961 to 1971 has caused severe, massive and prolonged consequences for the environment, ecology and health of the people of Vietnam.
Shocking pictures of Agent Orange victims can be seen at the following pages (WARNING, extremely graphic):
http://oraclesyndicate.twoday.net/s...

http://www.spingola.com/power_elite...

http://antiwar.com/orig/austin.php?...

http://legacy.bhopal.net/opinions/a...

http://vietnamartwork.wordpress.com...

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/0...

http://thetheologianscafe.xanga.com...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlin...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3...

Watch the video of children affected by Agent Orange:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zay...

First Vietnam, now America

Even walking around America today, many Americans are born as mutants thanks to the chemicals used in foods, medicines, lawn care and personal care products. That crime against humanity is about to be made far, far worse with the unleashing of 2,4-D on America's farmlands.

The gross deformities, birth defects, neurological disorders and physical retardation we have seen in Vietnamese children affected by Agent Orange could soon arrive at America's doorstep thanks to 2,4-D.

Dow, of course, is widely regarded as one of the most evil corporations on the planet, having already poisoned countless victims with toxic chemicals. Remember the Bhopal pesticide factory explosion in India? That was Union Carbide, owned by Dow. It killed thousands of people, maimed tens of thousands and injured over half a million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal...).

Read more about Bhopal: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/...

And learn more about Dow here:
http://www.thetruthaboutdow.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Ch...

Food production was once an honorable art, but at the hands of greed-driven globalists, it quickly became a system of profit seeking and then a tool for corporate domination over the People. Now it has become a weapon of mass destruction, and it is being used to decimate the health of both the population and the farmlands. 

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Industry Has Sway Over Food Safety System: U.S. Study

by Christopher Doering - Tuesday, September 14, 2010 by Reuters

WASHINGTON - The food industry is jeopardizing U.S. public health by withholding information from food safety investigators or pressuring regulators to withdraw or alter policy designed to protect consumers, said a survey of government scientists and inspectors.

A study released on Monday by the Union of Concerned Scientists found one-in-four of those surveyed have seen corporate interests forcing their agency to withdraw or modify a policy or action designed to protect consumers during the past year.

Pressure to overhaul the food safety system has grown following several high-profile outbreaks involving lettuce, peppers, eggs, peanuts, spinach and most recently eggs that have sickened thousands and shaken the public's confidence in the safety of the food supply.

The 44-question survey, conducted earlier this year, also found more than 38 percent of those respondents said public health has been hurt by businesses influencing food safety policy at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Agriculture Department.

"Upper level management does not adequately support field inspectors and the actions they take to protect the food supply," said Dean Wyatt, a USDA veterinarian who oversees federal slaughter house inspectors. "Not only is there lack of support, but there's outright obstruction, retaliation and abuse of power."

Despite the concerns, 67 percent of the respondents -- 72 percent at FDA and 65 percent at USDA -- said their agency is "moving in the right direction."

The survey was sent to 8,122 individuals working on food safety at the FDA and USDA. Just over 1,700 employees from all levels of the food safety system responded. USC said recipients were told their responses would be kept confidential and anonymous.

Foodborne illnesses sicken an estimated 76 million people in the United States each year and are fatal to 5,000, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The massive salmonella outbreak that sparked a recall of more than a half billion eggs from two Iowa plants in August could provide momentum for the Senate to act on its own food safety bill later this month.

The House passed food reform legislation in July 2009.

Monday, July 12, 2010

Meet the Food Industry Front Groups That Push for Carcinogens in Your Food

Pseudoscience, front groups and smear campaigns against scientists questioning industrial agriculture are used to convince the public that chemical-ridden food is safe.
By Jill Richardson, AlterNet, July 12, 2010

"You've probably heard of the 'Dirty Dozen' -- a list of produce items identified by the Environmental Working Group that reportedly contain too many pesticide residues. I thought you might like to know about this webinar that provides perspective on pesticide residues," said an email sent by Elizabeth Pivonka, a registered dietitian who serves as the president and CEO for the Produce for Better Health Foundation.

She sent the email to a few employees of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), who then forwarded it on to employees of state health departments. The webinar, which claimed to expose the "real" danger of the "Dirty Dozen" ("scaring consumers away from eating fresh fruits and vegetables" and having a "negative impact on public health at a time when we are facing an obesity epidemic"), was put on by the Alliance for Food and Farming -- a self-described non-profit organization made up of agricultural groups seeking to "educate and inform consumers and the media on issues of food safety and farming."

Sounds benign, right? In fact, it sounds downright helpful. Fortunately, after the CDC employees failed to question the webinar, an employee of the New York State Department of Health shot the webinar invitation out to a listserv asking, "Is this an industry group promoting conventional farming?" One look at the Alliance's Web site is enough to answer that with a qualified yes! The front page of the site touts in large font that "U.S. farmers produce the safest, most abundant food supply in the world" -- that's industry codespeak for "please don't question us -- just buy and eat the food we give you no matter how we choose to produce it." But who does the alliance represent? The Web site does not say, and when asked, the organization refuses to divulge its members -- a common tactic of industry front groups.

In fact, the Alliance for Food and Farming represents a number of mostly California-based farm and pesticide groups including the California Strawberry Commission, the California Farm Bureau Federation, the California Association of Pest Control Advisers, Western Growers, Sunkist Growers, the Produce Marketing Association, the California Tomato Farmers, and the California Table Grape Commission.

You might remember the California Farm Bureau from the movie Food, Inc., in which they were caught on film arguing that foods containing clones should not be labeled. Or perhaps you've heard of the California Strawberry Commission's pet cause du jour: legalizing the pesticide methyl iodide, a carcinogen so potent it is used to induce cancer in the lab. In other words, this is not the bunch that government regulators and health professionals should turn to for unbiased, factual information about the danger of pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables.

Front groups are a common vehicle industry uses to delude, confuse, and sometimes overtly defraud the public. In her book, Diet for a Hot Planet, Anna Lappé explains how the food industry learned its tactics from the tobacco industry, citing a 1969 tobacco industry internal memo: "Doubt is our product. It is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."

Lappé says, "The food industry long ago saw the benefits in fomenting confusion; confusion defuses public outcry about our toxic food system. Long after the discovery of the neurotoxic, carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting effects of farm chemicals, we're still debating the merits of organic agriculture." In addition to front groups, she lists industry-funded pseudoscience and well-financed smear campaigns against scientists questioning industrial agriculture as other tactics often used to convince the public they are providing us with unbiased facts.

With its relatively meager budget and unfinished Web site, the Alliance for Food and Farming is just an amateur among a field of more established, well-funded front groups like the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and the Center for Consumer Freedom (each with budgets in the millions). These groups are regularly quoted in the media as if they were legitimate sources of information and not astroturf organizations for the chemical and food industries. With its authoritative-sounding name, ACSH even managed to have itself listed as a "Resource" on the official Web site for a recent CNN special called "Toxic America," despite the fact that ACSH put out its own press release blasting the special as "bizarrely unscientific." As part of its strategy, the Center for Consumer Freedom maintains a number of issue-specific Web sites with names sure to guarantee search engines will find them like FishScam.com and MercuryFacts.org, both to counter the notion that some fish contain dangerous levels of mercury and humans should limit consumption of them.

The organizations named above are non-profits, which means a certain amount of information about them can be uncovered by looking at the financial disclosures they file with the IRS, but industry fronts can take other forms. For example, the Web site TruthInFood.com is maintained by Food-Chain Communications, a marketing firm that clearly specializes in promoting industrial agriculture and processed foods. While a list of its clients are not easily obtained, its founder, Kevin Murphy, has connections with many large beef and dairy industry organizations, including the National Grocer's Association and the National Council of Chain Restaurants.

Then there's the American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology (AFACT), a group founded solely to defend the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH). When AFACT was founded, Monsanto owned rbGH (it has since been sold to Elanco, a subsidiary of Eli Lilly). Conveniently, a consultant to Monsanto helped organize AFACT and the marketing firm Osborn & Barr (which includes a former Monsanto executive among its founders) gave the group money. AFACT calls itself "grassroots," but it is about as grassroots as a smokers' rights group organized by a tobacco company.

These front groups serve as one piece in a much larger puzzle intended to influence government, the media, health professionals and consumers. Members of Congress and their staff wake up to Capitol Hill metro stations plastered with advertisements from industries wishing to influence them, receive invitations to fancy events and educational briefings, and meet with lobbyists who provide them with industry-funded research and whitepapers. One industry group might lobby the government to allow the use of a pesticide, for example, and then turn around and claim (directly or through a front group) that the pesticide is safe because the government allows it.

Journalists, seeking to add "balance" or controversy to their stories, can always go to these organizations for quotes countering the statements of environmentalists, physicians and consumer advocates. And even when journalists -- or even universities -- are not seeking to feature the industry point of view, industry or its front groups are always there to insist they are given a chance to make their case. (In the case of universities, this often occurs when major donors threaten to withhold funding if certain speakers are invited to campus or professors teach courses on topics the donor finds inconvenient. And, unfortunately, the universities often side with the donors.)

With all of this misinformation, how can an average citizen discern between truth and propaganda? The most important thing to do is to consider the source of any message. One handy tool for this is Sourcewatch.org, a wiki maintained by the Center for Media and Democracy. Often, when a front group will not tell you which organizations or corporations are behind it, Sourcewatch* will. (Full disclosure: I am currently working with the Center for Media and Democracy, but I've used the site as my go-to on front groups for several years now.)

Another method is checking with organizations you know you can trust. In the case of the safety of pesticide residues on produce, the Produce for Better Health Foundation (whose donors include nearly every fruit and vegetable industry group and corporation imaginable) claims that pesticide residues on the Environmental Working Group's "Dirty Dozen" list fall within the amount EPA and FDA say is "generally regarded as safe." I attempted to register for the Alliance for Food and Farming's webinar (twice!) but was not permitted to participate, so I can only imagine its message is similar to this one.

So does that make pesticide residues safe? Consider a quote from the recently released President's Cancer Panel: "We have sprayed pesticides which are inherent poisons throughout our shared environment. They are now in amniotic fluid. They are in our blood. They are in our urine. They are in our exhaled breath. They are in our mother's milk. What is the burden of cancer that we can attribute to this use of poisons throughout our agricultural system? We won't really know that answer until we do another experiment, which is to take the poisons out of our food chain, embrace a different kind of agriculture, a healthier agriculture, and see what happens."