There was recently a big uproar about the FDA’s decision to approve genetically modified salmon for human consumption without the need to do any chemical testing on the salmon first.

FDA won’t allow food to be labeled free of genetic modification: report

By Raw Story‘Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,’ biotech spokesman says

That the Food and Drug Administration is opposed to labeling foods that are genetically modified is no surprise anymore, but a report in theWashington Post indicates the FDA won’t even allow food producers to label their foods as being free of genetic modification.

In reporting that the FDA will likely not require the labeling of genetically modified salmon if it approves the food product for consumption, thePost‘s Lyndsey Layton notes that the federal agency “won’t let conventional food makers trumpet the fact that their products don’t contain genetically modified ingredients.”

The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use “Hormone Free” labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.

It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase “GMO-free” on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms.

Read Entire Article

Intel Hub – The FDA is actively working with corporations such as Monsanto to essentially poison the food supply. The FDA is crawling with former Monsanto execs, the same company that brought us the infamous agent orange toxin and who controls the vast majority of the American food supply. We live in a country where our government BANS companies from labeling their products GMO free!

Bloomberg just ran an article that shows that consumer concern over the safety of genetically modified food is not unfounded.

According to the article scientist found that genetically modified corn, which was altered to cause the corn to produce an insecticide, is polluting the waters and streams near the corn fields were it is grown. Bloomberg reports that 85% of the corn grown in the U.S is genetically modified and the insecticides have been found in the waters up to 6 months after the corn was harvested meaning that the toxins produced by the corn enters the environment and stays there.

Apparently, while the scientists are concerned about the impact the toxins produced by the corn will have on the environment there is no concern over the health and safety of humans consuming the toxins either through direct consumption or as it comes up the food chain after the toxic corn is feed to livestock.

Toxin From Biotech Corn Detected in U.S. Streams, Study Finds

ept. 28 (Bloomberg) — An insecticide produced by genetically modified corn was found in streams in the U.S. Midwest, according to research by the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies.Samples at 217 stream sites in Indiana found the protein Cry1Ab, the toxin expressed by so-called Bt corn, in water at about a quarter of the locations, the Millbrook, New York-based institute said on its website, citing a study published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The insecticide enters waterways through runoff and when corn stalks, leaves and plant parts are washed into stream channels, …

…

These corn byproducts may alter the health of freshwater bodies, the institute said, adding that ultimately streams that originate in the Corn Belt drain into the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes.

Corn is made to produce the Cry1Ab protein, which is toxic to the European corn borer, by adding a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt….

The study was conducted six months after the corn harvest, indicating that the insecticide can persist in the environment…

…

More than 85 percent of U.S. corn in 2009 was genetically modified to repel pests, resist herbicide exposure or both…

Read the original story.

Grist Magazine gives us more information on the new report which you probably won’t find being discussed from any Corporate news sites.

Field of Screams — Transgenic crops’ built-in pesticide found to be contaminating waterways

One of the main arguments offered in support of the wide use of genetically engineered crops is that they reduce overall pesticide use. This is particularly the case with Monsanto’s “Bt” line of corn, soy, and cotton seeds, which are able to produce their own pesticide, a “natural” toxin from genes of the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis. Ironically, commercial pesticide derived from Bt also happens to be one of the only chemical pesticides approved for use in organic agriculture, because it’s produced through a biological process.Biotechnology companies thus consider Bt seeds some of their most “eco-friendly” products. In theory, farmers don’t have to spray pesticide as much or as often on these crops, and therefore pesticide runoff into waterways is much less of a concern. Well, after years of denial, Monsanto finally admitted recently that superbugs, or pests that have evolved to be able to eat the Bt crops, are a real and growing concern…

…

The fun part? No one has any idea yet of the effects of long-term, low-dose exposure to Bt on fish and wildlife. Perhaps it’s high time somebody did a study on that since, as the researchers dryly observed, the presence of Bt toxin “may be a more common occurrence in watersheds draining maize-growing regions than previously recognized.” Apparently.

So. Not only do genetically engineered crops have worse yields than conventionally bred crops, cost more, lead to pesticide resistance, contaminate other plants with their transgenes, possibly cause allergies and even organ damage, but now we also learn that the plants themselves are possibly poisonous to the environment.

These kinds of genetically engineered seeds keep being touted as the only way we’re going to feed the world. Isn’t it about time we started investing in less toxic alternatives?

Read Entire Aticle

Moreover, while the scientists who performed this research seem “shocked” to have found the toxins in the water and persisting in the environment for months I some times wonder what decision making process these scientists and the FDA uses to come to decisions. For example a study published in FEMS Microbiology Ecology clearly showed that the insecticides penetrated the soil through the root system and persisted in the environment. Common sense would tell you once it enters the soil of course the runoff from rain will carry it into lakes and streams.

FEMS Microbiology Ecology

Abstract

The insecticidal toxin encoded by the cry1Ab gene from Bacillus thuringiensis was released in root exudates from transgenic Bt corn during 40 days of growth in soil amended to 0, 3, 6, 9, or 12% (v/v) with montmorillonite or kaolinite in a plant growth room and from plants grown to maturity in the field. The presence of the toxin in rhizosphere soil was determined by immunological and larvicidal assays. No toxin was detected in any soils from isogenic non-Bt corn or without plants. Persistence of the toxin was apparently the result of its binding on surface-active particles in the soils, which reduced the biodegradation of the toxin. The release of the toxin could enhance the control of insect pests or constitute a hazard to nontarget organisms, including the microbiota of soil, and increase the selection of toxin-resistant target insects.

Saxena, D. and Stotzky, G. (2000), Insecticidal toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis is released from roots of transgenic Bt corn in vitro and in situ. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 33: 35–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2000.tb00724.x Volume 33, Issue 1,pages 35–39, July 2000

Read Entire Study

All247News has printed a piece warning of the dangers of Montosa’s GMO corn.

GMO Corn May Turn Your Tummy Into a Poison Production Factory

August 22nd, 2010.
Michael Danielson

The biotechnology industries are quite proud of their pest-resistant, genetically modified (GMO) corn and other crops. When you hear the term ‘pest-resistant’, you might not think, at first, of what that truly means — that the modified plants are creating their own pesticide inside their cells. In short, the plants kill the bugs that eat them, so the bugs learn not to eat them. Of course, that means that humans who consume the pest-resistant GMO corn are consuming pesticide with every bite, but it’s pesticide from inside the corn, so you can’t wash it off. Biotech companies claim that the toxin that their GMO plants create isn’t dangerous to humans, but many studies show otherwise.

Mice fed the toxin suddenly became allergic to many compounds that previously didn’t bother them. Farm workers have had reactions to the genetically modified toxin, and the Federal Court of Canada has recognized that “People with compromised immune systems or pre-existing allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of [this toxin].”

When the same toxin that GMO plants create within their cells was sprayed over areas of Washington State, six people went to the emergency room and hundreds more reported flu-like or allergy-like symptoms — all provably related to the spray. Then ponder the fact that, inside the plant, the toxin is more than three thousand times as concentrated as it is in the natural commercial sprays, and you can start to grasp the danger.

That’s not even half of the danger associated with the pest-resistant corn, however. The toxin is consumed when the corn is eaten, but it’s also present in the pollen, which can be inhaled by anyone working near the corn field. One Filipino village was mysteriously stricken with a disease in which the entire village suffered headaches, vomiting, chest and stomach pain, fever, and more — for exactly the duration of time that a nearby GMO corn field was blooming. The sickness recurred every year that the same variety of corn was planted in that field, and vanished when the corn was replaced with a different breed. When the same breed of corn was planted near four other villages in the area, the same symptoms swept the villages, again only during pollination season.

The Washington Post

By Lyndsey Layton

September 18, 2010

www.washingtonpost.com

As the Food and Drug Administration considers whether to approve genetically modified salmon, one thing seems certain: Shoppers staring at fillets in the seafood department will find it tough to pick out the conventional fish from the one created with genes from another species.

Despite a growing public demand for more information about how food is produced, that won’t happen with the salmon because of idiosyncracies embedded in federal regulations.

The FDA says it cannot require a label on the genetically modified food once it determines that the altered fish is not “materially” different from other salmon – something agency scientists have said is true.

Perhaps more surprising, conventional food makers say the FDA has made it difficult for them to boast that their products do not contain genetically modified ingredients.

The labeling question has emerged as the FDA determines whether to approve the fish, an Atlantic salmon known as AquAdvantage that grows twice as fast as its natural counterpart. The decision carries great weight because, while genetically modified agriculture has been permitted for years and engineered crops are widely used in processed foods, this would be the first modified animal allowed for human consumption in the United States.The AquAdvantage salmon has been given a gene from the ocean pout, an eel-like fish, and a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon.

‘The public wants to know’

Consumer advocates say they worry about labeling for genetically engineered beef, pork and other fish, which are lining up behind the salmon for federal approval.

“The public wants to know and the public has a right to know,” said Marion Nestle, a professor in the Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health Department at New York University. “I think the agency has discretion, but it’s under enormous political pressure to approve [the salmon] without labeling.”

The debate will be taken up this week, with an advisory committee meeting Sunday and Monday on whether to allow the modified fish, and a separate panel meeting Tuesday on whether the fish should be labeled. The panels will offer recommendations to the FDA commissioner, who will decide both matters.

The biotechnology industry is opposed to mandatory labeling, saying it will only bewilder a public that is not well informed about genetic engineering.

“Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,” said David Edwards, director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization. “It differentiates products that are not different. As we stick more labels on products that don’t really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices.”

The FDA defends its approach, saying it is simply following the law, which prohibits misleading labels on food. And the fact that a food, in this case salmon, is produced through a different process, is not sufficient to require a label.

The controversy comes at a time when Americans seem to want to know more about their food – where it is grown, how it is produced and what it contains. Books criticizing industrial agriculture have become bestsellers, farmers markets are expanding and organic food is among the fastest-growing segments of the food industry.

The FDA itself is part of a new effort to improve nutrition information on processed foods.

In the European Union and Japan, it is nearly impossible to find genetically modified foods, largely because laws require labeling, said William K. Hallman, director of the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers University. “No one wants to carry products with such a label,” he said. “The food companies figure that consumers won’t buy it.”

There is nothing to stop salmon producers or food makers in the United States from voluntarily labeling their products as genetically engineered – except a fear of rejection in the marketplace, Hallman said. “I don’t know of a single company that does that,” he said.

The FDA maintains it can only require labeling if a genetically engineered food is somehow different from the conventional version – if it has an unusual texture, taste, nutritional component or allergen, for example.

Although some consumer advocates maintain there are important differences, the agency’s scientists have already said they see no “biologically relevant” variations between the AquAdvantage salmon and traditional salmon.

Consumers could be certain of getting the non-modified version if they bought salmon labeled as “wild,” but most salmon consumed in this country is farmed.

Ever since the FDA approved the first genetically altered material for use in food in 1992, when Monsanto developed a synthetic hormone injected into cows to increase milk production, the agency has held that it cannot require food producers to label products as genetically engineered.

In the intervening years, the use of genetically engineered crops has skyrocketed; 93 percent of this year’s soybean crop is genetically engineered, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department.

Byproducts of those crops – soy lecithin, for example – are found in thousands of processed foods from chocolate bars to breakfast cereal; none is labeled as containing genetically modified ingredients.

No ‘Hormone Free’ either

The labeling matter is further complicated because the FDA has maintained a tough stance for food makers who don’t use genetically engineered ingredients and want to promote their products as an alternative. The agency allows manufacturers to label their products as not genetically engineered as long as those labels are accurate and do not imply that the products are therefore more healthful.

The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use “Hormone Free” labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.

It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase “GMO-free” on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms.

It told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words “GMO,” saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food.

“This to me raises questions about whose interest the FDA is protecting,” said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has introduced legislation that would require labeling for genetically engineered food. “They are clearly protecting industry and not the public.”

One state with a sizable salmon fishing industry – Alaska – passed a law in 2005 that requires labeling of any genetically engineered fish sold there.

“One side of the argument says let’s give consumers sovereignty over their food choices,” Hallman said. “The other says we’ve done the science on this and it’s no different, so if we put a label on it, we’re implying it’s somehow risky and that’s like government imposed false advertising.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/18/AR2010091803520.html?referrer=emailarticle

	This table is for reference only and gives a general idea as to the high fluoride content in some foods and beverages.

	BEVERAGES:
	Juices

	6.8mg/l Gerber’s White Grape Juice #3 0.98 – 1.20mg/l Minute Maid OJ #6,#7 3.0mg/l Gerber’s Graduate Berry Juice #6 0.78mg/l Dole Pineapple #7 >0.6mg/l Prune Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Cranberry Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Pear Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Red Grape Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Cherry Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Apple Grape Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Apple Juice #13

	Soft Drinks

	0.82 -0.98mg/l Coca Cola Classic #6,#7 1.12mg/l Diet Coke #8 0.29mg/l Snapple #7 0.73mg/l Sprite #8 0.85mg/l Hawaiian Punch #8 0.45mg/l Hansen’s Soda #7 0.37mg/l Capri Sun #7 0.79mg/l Publix Orange Juice #8 0.44mg/l Gatorix Punch Concent. #8 0.56mg/l Lipton Ice Tea #8

Tea see also: Green Tea Article (L=Leafs, P=Prepared) UK TEAS

Iced Tea

180.16mg/kg Coarse Tea(L) #19 72.62-89.02mg/kg Green Tea(L) #19 71.11mg/kg Refined Green Tea(L) #19 30-340 mg/kg Black Tea(16 samples) #20 4.57mg/l Tea (P) #17 1.01-5.20mg/l De-caffeinated Teas(P) #21 2.58-3.69mg/l Milk Tea(fr.Brick Tea) #23 77mg/kg Pu’er Brick Tea (L) #24 441mg/kg Bianxiao Brick Tea(L) #24 6.0-6.9mg/kg Herbal Teas (L) #20 7.8mg per cup 1 Cup Black Tea (P) #16 15.6mg/L “Wisdom of the Ancients” Instant Green Tea (P) #37 2.95mg/L Dr. Oetker Black Tea (P) #38 3.99mg/L Apicha Black Tea (P) #38

	Fruit & Vegetables

	0.3 – 13mg/kg Potatoes #12 22mg/kg Potato Waste #30 0.2 – 70.0 mg/kg Spinach #12 14.0mg/kg Rice #12 14.0mg/kg Peas #12 8.2mg/kg Yams #4 2.10mg/kg Corn #4 17.7mg/kg Beets #4 0.205mg 1 Cup Cooked Kale #16 0.180mg 1 Cup Cooked Spinach #16 1mg 1 Medium Apple #33 125 – 250 mg/kg Alfalfa #36

	Sugar & Substitutes

	13.0 mg/kg Sugar #5 10.0ppm Fructooligosaccharides #5 12.0ppm Polydextrose #5 8.0ppm Sorbitol #5

	Meat

	9.0-14.0mg/kg Mech.De-bond Pork #11 2.0-3.0 mg/kg Hand De-boned Pork #11 14.0-42mg/kg Mech.De-boned Beef #11 2.0-4.0mg/kg Hand De-boned Beef #11 1.0mg/kg Chicken Skin #13 1.23mg/kg Cooked Veal #17 1.11mg One Big Mac #1

	Dairy

	0.72mg/l Lucerne 2%Milk #7 0.074mg 1 Cup Nonfat Milk #16 1.50mg/kg Butter #4 1.62mg/kg Cheese #4

	Fish

	61.0mg/kg Canned Sardines #1 61.73mg/kg Shrimp #19 3.36mg/kg Shellfish #17 4.57mg/kg Some Canned Fish #17 26.0mg/kg Mackerel #4

Water

SEE ALSO: F- in Mineral Waters

	0.7-1.2mg/l Tap Water in fl.areas 0.21mg/l Gerolsteiner Wasser #9 8.5mg/l Vichy Water #10 0.05mg/l Reverse Osmosis Water #9

Cereals

SEE ALSO: Fluoride in Cereals

	2.1mg/kg Kellogg’s Fruit Loops #6 1.02mg/kg Cooked Wheat Cereal #17 7.2mg/kg Wheat #4 9.6mg/kg Shredded Wheat #41

Infant Foods

See also: Formula/Soy Unfluoridated Area Fluoridated Area

	Mixed Cereal 0.93ppm 3.85ppm #32 Oatmeal Cereal 0.98ppm 4.87ppm #32 Barley Cereal 1.99ppm 4.30ppm #32 Rice Cereal 2.11ppm 6.35ppm #32

	0.01-8.38mg/kg 238 Infant Foods #29 1.08-2.68mg/l Soy-based Infant Formula #31 0.024-0.172mg/l Breastmilk (area w/0.7ppm in tap water) #22

	Strained Meats

	Chicken w/broth 5.29ppm Range 1.94-10.64ppm #32 Turkey w/broth 0.39ppm Range 0.34-0.43ppm #32

	Other

	250 – 765mg/kg Soil #39 44.0-220.0mg/kg Dolomite #5 0.66-6.8mg/kg 10 Table Salt Varieties #1 7.0mg/kg Sea Salt #1 1.36mg/kg Peanuts #4 3mg 1 Teaspoon Bone Meal #18 200 – 350 ppm Fluoridated salt #40 231 – 310 ppm “Himalaya Salt” #40

	SEE ALSO: Salt Fluoridation

	130.0-160mg/kg Gelatin #15 328 mg/kg Super Kelp Tablets #35

	Dental Products

	1920mg/kg Aquafresh For Kids #6 6,000-12,000ppm Topical Fluoride Gel #23 500-1,500ppm Most Toothpaste #23 12,300ppm Radent Prophy Paste #26 12,300ppm Topex Fluoride Foam #27 2000ppm School-based Oral Mouthrinse Program #28 60,000-120,000ppm Silver Fluoride Solutions #23

	Permissable Cryolite Content Application Federal Register Cryolite (Sodiumfluoaluminate)=>Fluorine=54.3% see also: Pesticides

Proposed

Current

	45mg/kg 7mg/kg Cabbage #14 95mg/kg 7mg/kg Citrus Fruits #14 35mg/kg 7mg/kg Collards #14 30mg/kg 7mg/kg Eggplant #14 180mg/kg 7mg/kg Lettuce, head #14 40mg/kg 7mg/kg Lettuce, leaf #14 10mg/kg 7mg/kg Peaches #14 55mg/kg none Raisins #14 30mg/kg 7mg/kg Tomatoes #14 45mg/kg 7mg/kg Tomato Paste #14

	References
	#1 – Siebert & Trautna, Dept Expt Dentistry, Univ Würzburg, Germany. “Z. Ernaehrungswiss. 24 (1985) pp. 54-66″. [Abstract:”Fluoride content of selected human food, pet food and related materials”, Fluoride 19(3):152-153 (1986) #2 – Walters CB – Journal of Sci Food Agric 34:523-8(1983) #3 -  Jan G. Stannard, et al. “Fluoride Levels and Fluoride Contamination of Fruit Juices,” Journal of Pediatric Dentistry, 16(1):38-40, (1991) #4 -  Leading Edge Research Group #5 -  Lab tests , courtesy Cathy J.Rookard, Director, ACIDD (Association for  Children and Infants with Digestive Disorders) #6 -  Fluoride Risk Assessment Symposium in San Diego, June 19-21,1998;(local media conducted an analysis of fluoride content in some foods) #7 -  Lab Tests, San Jose, California (non-fluoridated area) #8 -  Lab Tests, Jupiter, Florida (non-fluoridated area) #9 -  Label(Canada) #10- Lantz O, Jouvin MH, De Vernejoul MC, Druet P – “Fluoride-induced chronic renal failure”  Am J Kidney Dis  10:2, 136-9 (1987) #11 – Field RA, Kruggel WG, Riley ML – J. Animal Science 43 ,755 (1976) #12 – Bredemann G – Biochemie und Physiologie des Fluors und der industriellen Fluor-Rauchschaeden. Berlin, (1956) #13 – Journal of the American Dental Association (Heilman, et al.,July 1997) #14 – Federal Register: August 7, 1997(Volume 62, #152) (PF-750;FRL-5727-3) #15 – Kumpulainen, J.,Koivistoinen,P.:Residue Reviews 68 p. 37 (1977) #16 – BabyCenter Editorial Team w/ Medical Advisory Board (http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/674.html#3) #17 – Dabeka WD, McKenzie AD – “Survey  of lead, cadmium, fluoride, nickel, and cobalt in food composites and estimation of dietary   intakes of these elements by Canadians in 1986-1988”  Journal of AOAC International  78 :4,  897 -909  (1995) #18 – Label, Kal-Mart Meal Powder #19 – Asanami S, Tanabe Y, Koga H, Takaesu Y – “Fluoride Contents in Tea and Sakura Shrimp In Relation To Other Inorganic Constituents” Shikwa Gakuho,  89(8):1407-12 (1989) #20 – Nabrzyski M, Garjewska R – “Aluminum and Fluoride in Hospital Daily Diets and in Teas” Z Lebensm Unters Forsch 201 (4):307-10 (1995) #21 – Chan JT, Koh SH – “Fluoride content in caffeinated, decaffeinated and herbal teas” Caries Res 30(1):88-92 (1996) #22 – Latifah R,Razak IA – “Fluoride levels in mother’s milk” J Pedod 13(2):149-54 (1989) #23 -Gotjamanos T, Afonso F – “Unacceptably high levels of fluoride in commercial preparations of silver fluoride”  Dent J 42(1):52-3 (1997) #24 – Cao J, Zhao Y, Liu JW -  “Safety evaluation and fluorine concentration of Pu’er brick tea and Bianxiao brick tea” Food Chem Toxicol 36(12):1061-3 (1998) #25 – Cao J, Zhao Y, Liu J – “Brick tea consumption as the cause of dental  fluorosis among children from Mongol, Kazak and Yugu  populations in China” Food Chem Toxicol 35(8):827-33 (1997) #26 – http://www.pascaldental.com/Fluoride.htm #27 – http://www.sultandental.com/PGflfoam.htm #28 – Oxford County Board of Health, Community Dental Services at (519)539-6121/ 1- 800-755-0394http://www.ocl.net/oxf/ocbh/dnt-rins.html #29 – Heilmann JR, Kiritsy MC, Levy SM, Wefel JS – “Fluoride Concentrations of Infant Foods” JADA 857 (1997) #30 – Federal Register: March 12, 1997; Volume 62, Number 48, Page 11437-11441 #31 – Silva M, Reynolds EC – “Fluoride Content of Infant Formulae in Australia” Aust Dent J 41(1):37-42 (1996) #32 – Singer L, Ophaug R – “Total Fluoride Intake Of Infants” Pediatrics 63, p.460 (1979) #33 -Waldbott GL, Burgstahler AW, McKinney HL – “Fluoridation:The Great Dilemma” Coronado Press (1978) #35 -Trautner, K et al – “Die Bewertung der Fluoridzufuhr mit der Nahrung. Studien zur Bioverfuegbarkeit” Dtsch. Zahnaerztl.Z.38:50-53 (1983) #36 – Milhaud G, Riviere F, Enriquez B – “Experimental study of fluorosis in lambs” Ann Rech Vet 6(4):369-77 (1985) #37 – PFPC 2004 – Norwest Labs, Langley, British Columbia, Canada #38 – Buzalaf MAR, Bastos JRM, Granjeiro JM, Levy FM, Cardoso VE da S, Rodrigues MHC – “Fluoride content of several brands of teas and juices found in Brazil and risk of dental fluorosis” Rev Fac Odontol Bauru 10(4):263-267 (2002) #39 – Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft  (2000) #40 – PFPC – Salt Fluoridation (2003) #41 – PFPC – Fluoride in Cereals (2001)

Lettuce……………….. 8ppm
Parsley………………. 7.8ppm
Stinging Nettle……… 7.8ppm
Spinach……………….. 5.7ppm
Dill, garden Dill… …..5.3ppm
Allspice………………..5ppm
Clover Pepper………..5ppm
Jamaica pepper………5ppm
Pimenta………………. 5ppm
Bitter melon, Sorosi 4.8ppm
Rhubarb………………. 4ppm
Pistachio……………… 3.8ppm
Black Currant……….. 2.8ppm
Coconut……………….. 2.7ppm
Cauliflower………….. 2.5ppm
Cabbage,
Red cabbage
White Cabbage………..2.5 ppm
Apple
(Malus domestica BORKH.)… 2.1ppm
Ben Nut, Drumstick Tree, Horseradish Tree…. 4ppm
Black bean, Garden bean,
Green bean String bean……… 2ppm
Ginger………. 2ppm
Cloudberry… 1.9ppm
Carrot………. 1.8ppm
Red Currant, White Currant.. 1.8ppm
Brazilnut………………………. 1.7ppm
Tomato (Miller)…….1.7ppm
Pecan………………….1.6ppm
Black Walnut…………1.6ppm
Dog Rose, Dobbrier, Rose…. 1.5ppm
Rown Berry………. 1.5ppm
Cashew………1.4ppm
Shagbark Hickory…… 1.3ppm
Almond………….1.3ppm
English filbert …..1.2ppm
Butternut…… 1.1ppm
Bell pepper, Cheery Pepper,
Cone Pepper, Green Pepper,
Paprika, Sweet Pepper…… 1ppm
Pea…….. 1ppm
Mandarin, Tangerine…..1ppm
Gooseberry….1ppm
Peach ….1ppm
Onion…. 1ppm
Strawberry…. 1ppm

Source: Jim Duke, U.S. Agricultural Research Service 1992 http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/

More:
http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/fluoride/fluoridetoo-14.html#P1425_142839

Maybe you have tried acai berries because they are a great natural way to increase energy.  Perhaps you are using a Resveratrol supplement as a natural way to feel better without having to resort to harmful prescription medicines.  Millions of people are making the choice to go with natural, Non-GMO products instead of human engineered foods and supplements.  This is exactly why it is so disturbing to learn that the majority of Acai Berry and Resveratrol supplements are made with genetically modified ingredients.

The Acai berry has gained international recognition as one of the highest antioxidant fruits in the world.  Dr. Perricone named the Acai berry as the #1 Superfood on the Oprah Winfrey show.  Acai has been featured on the Today Show, CBS Early Show, Wall Street Jounal and the New York Times.  The Acai berry grows in the Acai Palm trees of the Amazon Rainforest and is very high in antioxidants, healthy Omega fats, vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients.  While other foods and fruits may be high in certain key nutrients, what has made the Acai the top superfood is its complete nutritional profile.

Resveratrol (or Trans-Resveratrol) is a polyphenol that is found in red grapes.  Resveratrol has become the subject of great interest because of its ability to mimic calorie restriction and trigger the release of Sirtuin 1 (SIRT1).  The reason this is so significant is that it is believed that SIRT1 plays a role in slowing the process of aging and disease.  Resveratrol has been featured on CBS News 60 Minutes, the New York Times, Oprah and countless other media organizations.

Both Acai and Resveratrol are natural products which are rarely genetically modified.  The problem is with the Magnesium Stearate that is added to 90% of all acai berry and resveratrol products.  Magnesium Stearate is the magnesium salt or stearic acid from plant or animal sources.  It is is a saturated fatty acid and used in foods and supplements as an anti-caking agent and/or  as an emulsifier.  Most magnesium stearate is made from corn or soy and in the US 80% of the soy and corn crops have been genetically modified. This means if your Acai Berry or Resveratrol product list magnesium stearate in the “other ingredients” there is an excellent chance that your product is made with GMO material.

“The use of magnesium stearate in this industry is just another example of companies trying to save some money.  Magnesium stearate has no advantages for the consumers and there is a chance it is GMO or made from animals or made from saturated fats.  Why would any consumer want any of this things?” states Bob Peters, Director of Communications for PowerSupplements.Com “Is it possible that some of the supplements are using non-GMO magnesium stearate?  Sure, but as a consumer why take the risk.  If you can find a resveratrol or acai berry supplement that does not use magnesium stearate, that is your best bet.”

Read the Report on Acai, Resveratrol and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

In the PowerSupplements.Com report on GMO and supplements, they recommend that consumers search for supplements that do not use any magnesium stearate.  In the acai berry field, products such as the Perfect Acai do not use any magnesium stearate and are 100% Non-GMO.  In the area of Resveratrol and Muscadine Grape supplements, the recommendation is to use the Perfect ResGrape Resveratrol, it is also free of magnesium stearate and 100% Non-GMO.

Peters concludes, “We think it is great that people are more and more looking to increase their consumption of the amazing fruits that Mother Nature has given us.  I can tell you that no on in the Amazon Rain forest is sprinkling Magnesium Stearate on their Acai. Keep things simple, eat fruit – not magnesium stearate!”

About Power Supplements, LLC:

Power Supplements, LLC does research regarding food, health, supplements and diet. PowerSupplements reviews clinical studies and research to locate supplements and foods that are proven to be effective with real science.

Contact:
Bob Peters,  Director of Communications

PowerSupplements, LLC

646-827-9222

“Last year my little boy, Jonah, asked me if we could make organic gummy bears as we walked through our local supermarket. He knows we don’t eat stuff with corn syrup or chemicals, but at 4 years old, he did not know that in order to make an organic gummy bear with the quintessential bouncy gummy bear texture everyone loves, Sergio and I would have to invent the recipe. It took over a year to perfect the recipe and to make them taste fabulous. We all had a blast doing the taste tests and are so proud to share our new confections with you. Introducing: the world’s first ever true organic gummy bears from YummyEarth.”

YummyEarth has launched the first USDA- and EU-certified organic gummy bears with the texture of a traditional gummy bear.

The company claimed that the Organic Gummy Bears and Organic Gummy Worms are gluten-free, fat-free, dairy-free, soy-free, GMO-free, peanut-free, tree-nut free and have no artificial dyes, no MSG and no corn syrup.

According to the company, organic purple carrots and black currants are used to give them their colors. Each serving is loaded with Vitamin C.

The company said that the Organic Gummy Bears and Gummy Worms join the YummyEarth candy family, which includes the lollipops.

Reportedly, YummyEarth offers 21 flavors of organic candy, including Pomegranate Pucker, Blood Orange Cocktail, Strawberry Smash and Chile Mambo Mango, and a range of candy products, such as Organic Lollipops, Organic Vitamin C Pops and Organic Drops.

Rob Wunder, co-founder of YummyEarth, said: “Making wholesome, organic Halloween treats for my children and my neighbor’s kids gives me a real sense of pride. We have had such an overwhelming response from retailers that we are already working on gummy bears for Easter.”

The company said that the Organic Gummy Bears is available in a 5 ounce bag for a retail price of $2.59, Organic Gummy Worms is available in a 5 once bag for a retail price of $2.59 and the Organic Gummy Bears Family Snack Pack includes 10 snack packs and is available for a retail price for $5.99.

http://www.yummyearth.com/

The Basics:

What’s a GMO?

A GMO (genetically modified organism) is the result of a laboratory process of taking genes from one species and inserting them into another in an attempt to obtain a desired trait or characteristic, hence they are also known as transgenic organisms. This process may be called either Genetic Engineering (GE) or Genetic Modification (GM); they are one and the same.

What foods are GM?

Currently commercialized GM crops in the U.S. include soy (91%), cotton (88%), canola (80-85%), corn (85%), Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%), zucchini and yellow squash (small amount), and tobacco (Quest® brand). About half of the sugar beets grown for sugar in 2008 were GM and current projections are that about 90% grown in 2009 will be GM.

What are other sources of GMOs?

Products derived from the above, including oils from all four, soy protein, soy lecithin, cornstarch, corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup among others. Also:

• meat, eggs, and dairy products from animals that have eaten GM feed (and the majority of the GM corn and soy is used for feed);
• dairy products from cows injected with rbGH (a GM hormone);
• food additives, enzymes, flavorings, and processing agents, including the sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet®) and rennet used to make hard cheeses; and
• honey and bee pollen that may have GM sources of pollen.

The Health Dangers:

What are the potential dangers of eating GM foods?

There are a number of dangers that broadly fall into the categories of potential toxins, allergens, carcinogens, new diseases, antibiotic resistant diseases, and nutritional problems.

View all 65 health risks of GM foods, excerpted from Jeffrey Smith’s comprehensive book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. Other References

What combinations have been tried?

It is now possible for plants to be engineered with genes taken from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans. Scientists have worked on some interesting combinations:

• Spider genes were inserted into goat DNA, in hopes that the goat milk would contain spider web protein for use in bulletproof vests.
• Cow genes turned pigskins into cowhides.
• Jellyfish genes lit up pigs’ noses in the dark.
• Artic fish genes gave tomatoes and strawberries tolerance to frost.
• Potatoes that glowed in the dark when they needed watering.
• Human genes were inserted into corn to produce spermicide.

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Safety/biotech/290820090926_gmos_in_foods.html

Planting cyber seeds
St. Louis Post-Dispatch – March 29, 2009

Monsanto’s blog (Monsanto According to Monsanto) made its debut February 10, and it is the company’s latest tool to engage critics on hot-button issues such as food labeling. The title spoofs a documentary by French journalist Marie-Monique Robin that has been viewed more than 47,000 times on YouTube. Beside the blog, Monsanto has hired a full-time social media specialist, Kathleen Manning. It has almost 600 followers on the Web-based short messaging system Twitter, started a YouTube channel and launched a Facebook page. The company is also developing a version of its website for cell phones and Blackberries and is creating MonsantoTV.