Tag Archive | "Fish"

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ConAgra Anti-GMO Lawsuit Has Big Implications for Food Labeling

Posted on 02 September 2011 by admin

Product labeling is an area where loopholes and CSR seem to converge. It is precisely these loopholes that make it easy for companies to engage in a degree of greenwash but there is a thin line between ‘greenwash’ and ‘misleading the consumer.’  A recent lawsuit against ConAgra proves this point. The American food giant that owns several brands like Healthy Choice, Wesson, Slim Jim, & Banquet has been under attack for alleged false labeling.

The Food Safety News reports that its Wesson brand of cooking oil has been slapped with various lawsuits for claiming to be “all natural.” This deceptive marketing suit was brought against ConAgra in June by Millberg LLP. It could actually make food manufacturers think twice about bandying about the word ‘natural.’ Four Wesson varieties are implicated in the case: Canola Oil, Vegetable Oil, Corn Oil, and Best Blend, all of which have the  ”100% natural” claim on their labels.  However, the products include a number of genetically modified organisms (GMO).

The problem of course does not reside only with Wesson. There are thousands of processed food items that line grocery shelves that have the ‘natural’ label but are known to contain GMOs. 85% of US corn and 91% of soybean is genetically modified – both of these are common ingredients in processed food either by themselves or in the form of derivatives like soya lecithin, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch etc. 90% of Americans want full disclosure on their food products which may mean that every major food company needs to overhaul its labeling policies.

This is a very significant breakthrough for anti-GMO campaigners because it shows how much consumer choice actually affects companies. This is also a case for those companies and governments pushing forintroduction of GMO in their countries. India is currently in the midst of signing off on a bill that will enable the free production of GMO fruit and vegetables. This would be a potentially calamitous move due to the lack of labeling laws in India as well as the fact that the country by and large still follows a bulk-bin system of buying produce.

Con Agra might be able to wriggle its way out of the suit. Its recent disclosure report revealed that it spent $100,000 in the second quarter on lobbying government officials on agriculture programs, ethanol regulations, etc. According to the report it filed, the company lobbied the FDA, the Department of Agriculture and the Office of Management and Budget, apart from Congress. I wonder how much of this went towards GMO lobbying.

Food companies can no longer hide behind ambiguous labels like ‘natural’ because food essentially is natural! The label itself is an oxymoron. With the advent of the suit on Con Agra, it is necessary for other companies to question their methods of labeling and/or food sourcing so that they are not open to liabilities. Currently under US laws, GMOs are not required to be labelled but labeling a product ‘natural’ or ‘organic’ when it does contain GMO is misleading to the consumer. Surely that is illegal?

“ If they have to put the word ‘natural’ on a box to convince you, it probably isn’t “

- Eric Schlosser, author, Fast Food Nation

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Victory Against GMOs, U.S. Congress Bans FDA from approving GM salmon

Posted on 16 June 2011 by admin

(NaturalNews) The U.S. House of Representatives passed a law today that would effectively bar the FDA from approving GM salmon. This is a direct result of the rising awareness of the dangers of GMOs among American consumers, along with steady coverage of the issue by the alternative media (including NaturalNews) and the efforts of Jeffrey Smith from ResponsibleTechnology.org

For months, the FDA has seemed on the verge of approving GM salmon. They claim it’s no different than regular salmon and has zerohealthrisks. This is a lie, of course: TheFDAhas no idea what the long-term health effects are fromgenetically modifiedsalmon (or GM foods of any other kind, actually), and the pending approval ofGM salmonwas actually the result ofcriminal corruptioninsidethe FDAwhich now favors big corporate interests instead of the health and safety Americanpeople.

The FDA, it turns out, will approvealmost anypoison– even one that kills people or gives them cancer — as long as some sufficiently wealthy corporation profits from it. All the so-called “scientific scrutiny” the FDA says it conducted in regards to GMsalmonwas nothing more than an elaborate circus act designed to bring the appearance ofscienceto an agenda that has nothing to do with science at all… and everything to do with politics and profit (http://www.naturalnews.com/029770_s…).

The FDA is so incredibly corrupt that it believesconsumersshould NOT even know whichfoodscontain genetically modified ingredients! The idea thatGMOfoods should be honestly labeled is considered highly offensive by the FDA. It wants to keep consumers ignorant of what’s in theirfoodbecauseif people really knew what was in most of the food they buy, they would be absolutely horrified.

GMOs, asNaturalNewsreaders well know, are not merely carriers of the genetic code to produce poison pesticides; they have also been scientifically proven tocause widespread infertility. (http://www.naturalnews.com/025001.html)

Learn more about the dangers of GMOs atwww.ResponsibleTechnology.orgor watch my music videoJust Say NO to GMOsat:http://www.naturalnews.com/NoGMO.html

How do you stop a rogue federal agency from poisoning the people?

Alaskan Republican Don Young gets the credit for spearheading this effort to halt GM salmon. He accomplished this by amending a farm spending bill and including language that prevents the FDA from spendingmoneyon approving GM salmon.

The reason this strategy is necessary is because the FDA isa rogue agencythat largely operates outside the law to pursue its own agenda. As explained by attorney Jonathan Emord, author ofThe Rise of Tyranny(http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Tyranny-…), U.S. federal agencies operate asKingdomsthat respect no law and are run by unelected bureaucrats. The FDA respects no law and no freedoms whatsoever — not even the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The only wayCongresscan intervene in the FDA’s agenda to keep Americans ignorant of the presence ofGMOsin their food is to deprive it of the funding it needs to operate.

This is why the FDA is constantly trying to expand its budget through deceptive legislation efforts such as the S.510 Food Safety Bill. Every corrupt (evil) federal agency always wants more money so that it can have more power and authority over everybody else. And because the people who run these agencies are never elected (FDA, FTC, USDA,DEA, DHS, etc.),they answer to no oneand can never be removed from their jobs by the voters.

This is howtyrannygrows, just as we’ve seen with the TSA and its lewdbodysearches that are conducted in complete violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Not yet law

This effort to deny the FDA the ability to approve GM salmon isn’t a law yet. It’s only been passed by the House. Now theSenateneeds to approve a similar amendment before it can become law. So the battle continues in the Senate…

If this effort succeeds, it will be the first time the U.S. Congress has really stood up against the FDA to fight forrealfood safetyin the United States ofAmerica. And it may signify the beginning of a huge public backlash against GMOs that will ultimately end in GMOs being outlawed in the USA.

Watch for more posts here at NaturalNews as we track the outcome of this legislative effort. Also, I predict the FDA will hurry up and try to approve GM salmon in the next few weeks before this bill becomes law, thereby circumventing its effects. If it does, the FDA will actually be guilty of unleashing what can only be called anexperimental biological weapononto the U.S. public.

It will alsodestroy the salmon industrybecause no one will trust salmon anymore. If you don’t know which salmon is GMO or not, would you keep buying salmon? Probably not.

Sources for this story include:

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/032719_GM_salmon_Congress.html#ixzz1av59phFH

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

House Votes To Block FDA Approval Of Genetically Modified Salmon

Posted on 15 June 2011 by admin

WASHINGTON — The House voted Wednesday to prohibit the Food and Drug Administration from approving genetically modified salmon for human consumption.

The FDA is set to decide this year whether to approve the modified fish, which grows twice as fast as the natural variety. The FDA said last year that the fish appears to be safe to eat but an agency advisory panel said more studies may be needed before it is served on the nation’s dinner tables.

If the salmon is approved, it would be the first time the government allowed such modified animals to be marketed for human consumption. It was created by a Massachusetts company, AquaBounty, which says its fish is safe and environmentally sustainable.

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, offered an amendment to a farm spending bill late Wednesday that would prohibit the FDA from spending money to approve AquaBounty’s application. The amendment was approved by voice vote.

Young argued that the modified fish would compete with wild salmon in his state. Other critics have labeled the modified salmon a “frankenfish” that possibly could cause allergies in humans and eventually decimate the wild salmon population.

AquaBounty has added a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon that allows the fish to produce their growth hormone all year long. The bioengineers were able to keep the hormone active by using another gene from an eel-like fish called an ocean pout that acts like an on switch for the hormone, according to the company. Conventional salmon produce the growth hormone only some of the time.

The FDA has appeared favorable toward the engineered fish, saying there are no biologically relevant difference between the engineered salmon and conventional salmon and there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from its consumption. The agency is also considering whether the fish needs to be labeled as modified.

Approval would open the door for a variety of other genetically engineered animals, including a more environmentally-friendly pig that is being developed in Canada or cattle that are resistant to mad cow disease. Each would have to be approved by the FDA.

The House is expected to pass the farm spending bill later this week. The Senate has not weighed in on the issue.

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

California votes to label (but not ban) GMO Frankenfish

Posted on 04 May 2011 by admin

With the USDA expected to approve genetically modified (GMO) salmon in the near future – without any serious safety research – it may devolve on the states to try to minimize the potential negative impact.

The California Assembly Health Committee in Sacramento on May 3 approved a bill requiring that all GMO salmon sold in California contain clear and prominent labeling.

Assemblymember Jared Huffman introduced the bill, AB 88, due to widespread dissatisfaction by consumer, fishing and environmental groups and Indian Tribes with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current review of the first-ever proposed commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) Aqua-Bounty salmon.

How would GMO salmon be raised? See: Salmon farms are the filthy feedlots of the sea

“Knowing whether our salmon is genetically engineered is important for a host of reasons, including risks to our native salmon species, and allowing consumers to make dietary choices consistent with concerns they may have for the environment, food safety, and religiously or ethically based dietary restrictions,” said Assemblymember Huffman, in explaining the reason for introducing the bill.

Keep it real, keep it safe

The Center for Food Safety (CFS), a co-sponsor of the bill, and other groups applauded the Health Committee for protecting the public’s right to know how their food is produced.

“The FDA has indicated that it will not require these GE fish to be labeled once they are approved,” said Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety. “As such, it is incumbent on the California State legislature, starting with the Health Committee, to let the people of California make informed choices about the food they eat by requiring the labeling of GE fish sold in California.”

What’s our beef with GMO salmon? See: The trouble with Monsanto and GMO – Dr David Suzuki spells it out

AB 88 “would provide that food is misbranded if the food is a genetically engineered fish or fish product, as defined, and its labeling does not conspicuously identify the fish or fish product as genetically engineered,” according to the bill language.

Coauthors of the bill include Assembly Members Michael Allen (D-Santa Rosa), Tom Ammiano (D-SF), Wesley Chesbro (D-Arcata), and Bill Monning (D-Carmel). AB 88 will make a stop in the Appropriations Committee before being taken up by the full Assembly.

The right to know

Public opinion clearly and consistently calls for food labeling, according to Spector. Recent polls indicate that 95% of the public want labeling of genetically-modified foods, and that nearly 50% of the public would not eat seafood that has been genetically engineered. Consumers sent nearly 400,000 public comments to FDA demanding the agency reject this application and require mandatory labeling of this transgenic salmon should it decide to approve it.

The Center for Food Safety and other organizations throughout the country recently called on the FDA to recognize the immense public outcry for mandatory labeling of untested, unproved transgenic salmon. If approved, the transgenic salmon – nicknamed “Frankensalmon” or “Frankenfish” by many opponents of GMO food – would be the first genetically engineered animal intended for human consumption.

“Until FDA completes an adequate environmental and human health review of genetically engineered salmon, it is up to individual states to protect consumers and their families,” said Spector. “California has always been a leader in environmental and food safety laws, and AB 88 continues this tradition by protecting the public from a potentially harmful food technology. More importantly, it gives consumers the right to know what they are eating and gives them a choice in the marketplace.”

Broad coalition

Supporters of the legislation include the California State Grange, Consumers Union, Center for Food Safety, California Coastkeeper Alliance, Clean Water Action California, Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, Commercial Fishermen’s Organization of Morro Bay, Crab Boat Owners Association, Food & Water Watch, Golden Gate Fishermen’s Association, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Sierra Club California, Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen’s Association and South Yuba River Citizens League.

“Although most of Food & Water Watch’s efforts have been focused on national legislation to ban GE salmon such as HR 521 and S 230, rather than to label it, we are campaigning hard for AB 88 because California often sets the precedent for the nation in these sorts of matters,” stated Marie Logan of Food and Water Watch. “Passing AB 88 will send a strong message to legislators nationwide that consumers in California are concerned about genetic engineering of animals. The owner of the company producing GE fish has even admitted publicly that labeling the fish would be tantamount to banning it — so our work is cut out for us.”

“It is clear that California consumers want to know where their food comes from, how it’s made, and if it has been genetically engineered,” explained James Ferro, Policy Analyst for Ocean Conservancy’s aquaculture program. “This bill empowers California consumers to vote with their wallets when it comes to genetically engineered seafood.”

Ferro noted that California is not the only state concerned with the federal government’s potential approval of engineered fish; thirteen other states have introduced similar legislation this year to require labeling of genetically engineered fish or other engineered food.

->Next page: You can’t keep a lid on it

More on Salmon, MLPA and California’s water wars:

Source: Red Green & Blue (http://s.tt/12zxW)

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , ,

China Rejects USA Corn Cargo Citing GMOs

Posted on 29 October 2010 by admin

(Reuters) - China has rejected a cargo of U.S. corn after finding it contained an unsanctioned genetically modified strain, two sources familiar with the situation said on Friday.

“China only allows 11 varieties of GM corn to be imported to the country, and the cargo was found with GM material outside the 11 varieties,” said one source, who declined to be identified.

“The animal and plant quarantine department has barred it from entering China,” the source said. He said it was supplied by a Japanese trading house.

The cargo of 50,000-60,000 tonnes was shipped to a port in the China’s southern province of Guangdong in September. The problem was detected only in October, the same source said.

China’s first ever rejection of a U.S. corn cargo, if confirmed, risks deepening a trade spat with the United States and a bigger diplomatic row with Japan.

Chinese quarantine officials at Shenzhen in Guangdong, which accounted for half of the 513,000 tonnes of corn imported by China last month, declined to comment.

“If we have any information there will be an official announcement,” said an official at the local quarantine bureau.

A third corn trading source said he had heard one Japanese cargo was “in trouble” in the south of China. But he could not confirm it had been rejected.

Chinese corn imports have rocketed this year, and are expected to continue growing next year, after China’s own harvest couldn’t keep up with a boom in demand, mainly driven by production of corn-based animal feed.

It was unclear if the rejection of a cargo on GMO grounds would have a wider impact on the corn trade.

China has long used its tough rules on GMOs to keep U.S. corn out of its market, the world’s second biggest. But, struggling to keep up with demand, it gave its first safety approval to a GMO strain of corn late last year and began importing again this year, the vast majority of it from the United States.

Chinese relations with Japan have soured in recent months following the detention of a Chinese fishing boat captain by the Japanese coast guard after their boats collided near disputed islands in the East China Sea.

But the two countries’ foreign ministers met on Friday in a “very good atmosphere,” according to Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will also visit China on Saturday, stopping over on Hainan Island during a two-week Asia-Pacific trip to meet Chinese State Councillor Dai Bingguo.

(Reporting by Tracy Zheng, Niu Shuping and Tom Miles; editing by Simon Webb and Keiron Henderson)

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Genetically Modified Corn Polluting Streams, Rivers and Lakes With Insecticides

Posted on 03 October 2010 by admin

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


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.

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I have a right to know about GMOs

Posted on 27 September 2010 by admin

As a human being, an American, I have a right to know what is in the food I consume! As far back as time humans have generally known what their diet consisted of. Early humans just picked it right from the vine, tree, or ground and new that it had nutritional value because it satiated their hunger and gave them energy. Even as far back as a hundred years ago general nutritional value was known of the food you ate. Most people back then even knew where it came from and who grew it and where! Today most of us do not know where our food was grown, what was put on it (i.e. pesticides, fertilizers, hormones, mutant genes, etc!), how it was delivered, or processed. While I understand the FDA’s stance that too much information may confuse most consumers, identifying a genetically modified product would not be confusing. The product has either been genetically modified or it hasn’t (GMO or not GMO) pretty simple! While most consumers are aware that the vast majority of processed foods has been made with plant and vegetables that are heavily treated with insecticides and fertilizers many are not aware that they are also using GMO corn, soy, and canola. They have a right to know! Most consumers are aware that their meat has been treated with hormones and vaccines, many are not aware how much or to what extent. They have a right to know!

The FDA nor the Government has the right to keep such general information from any consumer. They do not have the right to decide if that information is pertinent to me and my decision to buy and consume it. Only I have the right to decide that. The idea that they have decided that the GMO products such as corn, soy, canola, and now possibly salmon are the same as the non GMO products. Their science may say that but I have a right to know what it is I am eating and to deny me the knowledge of the fact that the product has been genetically modified is denying me the right to decide if that is what I want to consume. As it is now, I do not consume processed foods, I do not eat fish or seafood at all. I buy my meat from a source where I know what went into it and what nutritional value I will get from it. Europe has refused our GMO grains. Haitians burned thousands of pounds of donated grains from US farm corporations because they were GMO grains. They were starving and yet they refused the grains! As a United States citizen and a human I demand that the FDA and our Government tell the truth! Tell consumers what is a GMO and what is not. What are they afraid of, that people won’t buy it if it is marked as GMO? Maybe that will happen maybe not, but the people shall decide not the Government.

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Is the Frankenfish a GMO or What?

Posted on 24 September 2010 by admin

I read the article about the so-called frankenfish on La Figa this evening and it seems that there is quite a bit of confusion about what this so-called frankenfish really is. Some of that confusion is naturally occuring because the FDA is hearing the application for approval of this beastie under its “veterinary drug” classification. Yes, you heard that right.

The fact is that this thing is so new and so unprecedented that there is really no actual mechanism for any approval or process or anything so the FDA has just pulled something out of the air and it is moving forward. The veterinary drug process has very short public comment periods and limited or confidential evidence streams – all of which are very problematic when you consider just what this little beastie is.

So….just what is it? Well, it IS a GMO. Not like a plant, which has a virus inserted with a desired new foreign piece of DNA, although it does have that. The frankenfish has foreign DNA from the ocean pout – a kind of eel that grows very fast.

It also has a few other interesting characteristics. In order to produce this fish, they first take non fertilized eggs and put them under some pressure which forces them to split their DNA. The eggs are then fertilized resulting in what is called triplody – in other words they now have 3 sets of DNA instead of the usual 2. Since all the eggs have 2 sets from the mother all the offspring are female and sterile. This is how they guarantee that the offspring will not contaminate the wild fish. (At least they hope so anyway).

There is more tinkering with importing DNA from wild chinook salmon and more eggs and pressure and pout DNA and stuff and you eventually wind up with the end result.

Frankenfish have diplody (two full sets of DNA instead of one) and they contain extra DNA from Chinook salmon and ocean pout in addition to their original Atlantic salmon DNA. So…they really are GMO. Just not like plants. Much, much worse.

Some people are allergic to salmon. The testing for the allergens in normal salmon were so poorly done as to be worthless, but the few results there were indicated that these salmon are almost 14 times as likely to cause allergies than regular Atlantic salmon.

But they are perfectly safe. They are just regular fish after all.


Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , ,

Kucinich urges FDA to delay decision on genetically modified salmon

Posted on 20 September 2010 by admin

Rep. Dennis Kucinich this month is urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to delay a verdict on whether to allow genetically engineered (GE) salmon to hit the market.

The Ohio Democrat, who chairs the House Oversight Committee’s domestic policy subpanel, says the current process simply doesn’t allow enough time for the public to weigh in.

“Given the magnitude of interest and concern expressed by the public on issues of food safety, food labeling and the environmental impact of GE animals, it is clear that serious and irreversible damage will result if public comment is curtailed,” Kucinich wrote earlier this month to FDA Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein.

The FDA is meeting Monday and Tuesday to decide whether a Massachusetts-based company should be permitted to sell its genetically modified Atlantic salmon, which grows about twice as fast as its wild cousin. If approved, it would be the first genetically modified animal allowed to be sold as food.

The agency is also weighing whether to force the company to label its salmon as genetically engineered.

Kucinich is sponsor of legislation requiring consumer-friendly labeling when food has been genetically modified.

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , ,

FDA CoverUp on GMO Salmon

Posted on 20 September 2010 by admin

Last week we were alarmed to learn that officials at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) intentionally withheld a damning report from the public that provided conclusive evidence that GMO salmon pose a serious threat to endangered Atlantic salmon if accidentally released into the wild. It is appalling that a federal agency would knowingly hide information from the American public on something as important as our food safety.

Join us in telling the FDA to reject GMO salmon and demand that all transgenic food animals are labeled. Act today, there’s no telling what else AquaBounty and the FDA are also hiding!

ACTION! http://fdn.actionkit.com/cms/sign/urgent_gmo_salmon

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Advertise Here
Advertise Here