Tag Archive | "Raw"

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

FDA’s Vicious Attack on Dietary Supplements

Posted on 14 September 2011 by admin

By Dr. Mercola

S.1310: Dietary Supplement Labeling Act of 2011, introduced at the end of June by U.S. Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) is, using Byron J. Richards’ words, “an alarming regulatory nightmare that is trying to treat vitamins as if they are drugs.”

Its stated purpose is to:

“… improve the safety of dietary supplements by amending the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require manufacturers of dietary supplements to register dietary supplement products with the Food and Drug Administration and to amend labeling requirements with respect to dietary supplements.”

As is typical of most diabolical laws, it initially sounds harmless enough. But there’s more. Durbin’s bill goes hand-in-hand with new FDA regulations that amend the definitions for new dietary ingredients (NDI’s), and together, they can threaten your health and freedom of choice, and further serve to strengthen the fatally flawed paradigm of health and medicine.

We’ve seen proposed legislation that sorely threatens your health and well-being before, but this time they’re really trying to hit the alternative health field, and your right to take control of your own life, hard.

It’s Not about Safety, It’s about Profits

Whose profit, you might ask?

Why, the pharmaceutical industry, of course. Vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements have a tremendously safe track record. Drugs are known to cause well over 100,000 deaths per yearwhen taken as prescribed.

For comparison, look at the latest statistics available from the U.S. National Poison Data System, which covers acute poisonings. In 2007, 1,597 people reportedly died from drugs. Meanwhile there was not one single fatality caused by a vitamin or dietary mineral supplement that year. Yet, Durbin and the FDA want you to think that they’re just acting in your best interest. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Up to this point, the FDA has had to prove a supplement unsafe in order to take action against it, but now they want the supplement industry to prove the safety of what in many cases amount to food, before they can reach the market.

Why add an extremely costly testing and approval process for compounds that are inherently safe? Well, an obvious side effect of these proposed regulations will be the elimination of small and medium sized companies, which in turn will drive up costs while at the same time reduce your access to historically safe nutritional products. The end result is that fewer people will use supplements to improve their health; driving them back into the extremely profitable fold of conventional medicine and drugs.

Byron J. Richards writes:

“The elimination of health options is required for the control of a population, while the preservation of health freedom is a leading indicator of the overall freedom within a society… [T]he control of health options is as important as the control of food and money.

… Big Pharma influences Republicans by aligning itself as a corporate conglomerate that is too big to fail, one that should be free of prudent safety regulations or reduction in grotesquely inflated prices. It fights against drug safety at every turn, while at the same time lobbying to pass laws that lock in sales or eliminate its competition.

The media plays along, as Big Pharma is a wonderful source of advertising dollars that are in no small part made possible by taxpayer funding of Big Pharma drug sales. While Big Pharma sees many aspects of the dietary supplement industry as competition, it is also the case that many pharmaceutical companies are in some aspect of the dietary supplement industry, often as raw material suppliers.

Big Pharma does not want to see the dietary supplement industry eliminated, it wants to see the small and medium sized independent businesses in the dietary supplement industry eliminated and it wants to own the industry. Their key strategy to accomplish this at this time is to lobby to pass costly laws and regulations which they can comply to and which other smaller, independent companies cannot. “

The Second Part of an Orchestrated Attack

Back in the early 1990s, the FDA threatened the availability of dietary supplements to the point that consumers staged a massive revolt, which resulted in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). The law specifically protects your access to dietary supplements by classifying them as foods, not food additives or drugs, and it grand-fathered in dietary supplements that were already in use as of 1994. Only novel ingredients introduced after October 15, 1994 are required to seek FDA approval.

Now, along with Durbin’s bill, the FDA has concocted new proposed mandates regarding the definition of a New Dietary Ingredient , known as NDI, that can be retroactively applied to products already on the market.

You can read the FDA Draft Guidance on New Dietary Ingredients (NDI’s) here. A detailed analysis of the FDA Draft Guidance is also available.

According to Richards:

“It is important to understand that this is a Durbin effort to ruin the dietary supplement industry, using both newly proposed legislation (S.1310) and retroactively redefining the DSHEA law through new FDA regulations to reflect what is being proposed in S.1310 – undermining the clear intent of the DSHEA law.

The DSHEA law intended consumers to have wide access to dietary supplements. Durbin is intent upon the opposite.” These regulations seek to change what was essentially a notification process into a costly approval process. The net effect of the regulations is to reclassify many nutritional compounds currently on the market as NDI.”

The DSHEA legislation states that:

  • the Federal Government should not take any actions to impose unreasonable regulatory barriers limiting or slowing the flow of safe products and accurate information to consumers;
  • dietary supplements are safe within a broad range of intake, and safety problems with the supplements are relatively rare;
  • and legislative action that protects the right of access of consumers to safe dietary supplements is necessary in order to promote wellness

The proposed mandates directly contradict what DSHEA sought to prevent, and the FDA is using its authority in direct violation of Congressional intent. As explained in an article by Alliance for Health, the proposed regulations turn what was clearly supposed to be a pre-market notification system into a pre-approval system, just like that of drugs. As a result, dietary supplements that have been freely available for nearly two decades can be forced off the market until they receive NDI approval. And the NDI approval process is a lengthy affair that may take months or years to complete, and cost a small fortune.

What might make an “old” ingredient “new,” under the new regulation?

The methods of production and extraction, for example… As bizarre as that sounds, the mere fact that a product is being extracted or produced by improved means compared to methods used in the past, could reclassify any grandfathered nutrient as an NDI that would now have to undergo the same type of safety testing and approval process as a drug.

Ridiculously Excessive Safety Testing Would be Required Under New Rules

If the FDA and Durbin get their way, once a supplement is taken off the market pending approval as an NDI, the manufacturer would have to conduct outrageously expensive studies using abnormally high doses—in some situations multiplied by a “safety factor” up to 2,000-times the recommended dosage on a per product basis. In fact, some of the safety thresholds are in excess of those required by pharmaceutical drugs despite studies showing supplements are FAR safer than drugs!

An estimated 106,000 hospitalized patients die each year from drugs that, by medical standards, are properly prescribed and administered, and two million more suffer serious side effects. How does the safety of supplements compare?

  • In 2001, 84.6 percent of all substances implicated in fatal poisonings were pharmaceutical drugs, according to that year’s American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) report. This compares with 0.8 percent for all dietary supplements combined, even including substances such as dinitrophenol, a dangerous (and illegal) substance banned in 1938, as well as the central nervous system stimulant Ma Huang (Ephedra).

    ONE drug alone, the anti-asthma drug theophylline, which was responsible for 15 deaths that year, amounted to 66 percent more than all the available dietary supplements combined.

  • According to CDC mortality data for 2005, prescription drugs killed more than 33,500 people that year, second only to car accidents. That same year, the American Association of Poison Control Centers reported 27 deaths that were associated with dietary supplements (one of which was reportedly due to Ephedra; the herbal supplement banned the year before for being too dangerous. In 2005, low-dose Ephedra was also subsequently banned).

Now, since dietary supplements are not patented drugs with outrageous profit margins, very few supplement makers will be able to afford the required safety studies, which could run in the millions of dollars per ingredient! Furthermore, the manufacturer is not the only one that would have to seek approval—every distributor that wants to use the NDI would have to file a separate NDI application.

Get Involved NOW!

Folks, this is not the time to doze off on the sidelines. Durbin’s bill and the FDA proposed mandates for NDI’s are a poorly veiled attempt to usurp your rights and health freedom. As Richards writes:

“This chess game is being played with a pathetic opening strategy based on imaginary safety problems. The gambit requires an ignorant public for its success.

It’s time to prove them wrong yet again, just like we did back in 1994. The open comment period on the FDA’s proposed guidelines expires on September 30, 2011. It’s vitally important for everyone to file a written protest and not allow them to rewrite the intent of the DSHEA law. Durbin’s bill and the FDA proposal pose a direct threat to your health and longevity, so please, step up and defend your right to continue using supplements and to gain access to new natural ingredients with demonstrated efficacy by following the steps outlined below:

  1. Write to your State Senators and tell them to beware of S.1310 and to vote NO on it.

  2. Log on to www.lef.org/lac to send a written petition to the FDA, or use the sample letter provided below. Print out this petition and add any words you choose and fax this to the FDA at the following number: (301) 443-9767
  3. Call FDA at 1-888-723-3366 and read this petition to personnel at the Office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary Supplements
  4. Send a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by logging in to lef.org/FOIA to find out what pharmaceutical interests are behind these absurd proposals that will cause the cost of what supplements remain on the free market to skyrocket in price. (Sample letter is also provided below.)
  5. Send a letter to your Representative and two Senators demanding the FDA immediately withdraw their oppressive proposed guidelines pending rationale discussions with those who depend on dietary supplements to protect their health and livelihood. You can do this easily by logging into www.lef.org/lac, or use the sample letter below.

Empower yourself today. Recall how Consumers revolted back in 1994 and the result was a glorious victory over FDA tyranny!

Let your voice be heard by logging on to www.lef.org/lac today and exercising your right to petition the government against these serious violations of the law and scientific principle.

SAMPLE FDA PETITION:

PLEASE NOTE, it is best if you customize or change the letter below to state your specific concerns and beliefs as it will be better. If you are unable to then you can send the one below but it will work MUCH better if you can customize it.

TO: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

Office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary Supplements

Food and Drug Administration

5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.HFS-009

College Park, MD 20740-3835

Telephone:1-888-723-3366

Fax: (301) 443-9767

On July 11, 2011, President Obama issued an Executive Order that requires the FDA to:

  1. Make regulatory decisions only after consideration of their costs and benefits (both quantitative and qualitative).
  2. Review significant regulations to make sure they are not excessively burdensome.
  3. Develop and release to the public a plan within 120 days under which the FDA will periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency’s regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.

I am petitioning the FDA regarding your draft guidance on New Dietary Ingredient notifications for dietary supplements (known as Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues).

I demand that you immediately disregard all the proposals you outlined and instead consider a rationale and scientific approach to regulating new dietary ingredients that will be submitted to you by the Alliance for Natural Health within the next 180 days.

Your proposed guidelines on New Dietary Ingredients will cause the price of my supplements to skyrocket and some of these life-sustaining supplements are likely to disappear altogether.

This is not acceptable, especially when there are no significant reports of adverse reactions to the supplements you plan to ban.

In as much as your threat to ban my access to new dietary ingredients is causing me great anxiety which is injurious to my health, I insist that you immediately put your proposed new rules on hold for a 180 day period so that the Alliance for Natural Health can draft guidelines that will protect me against unsafe ingredients without destroying my access to low cost effective nutrients.

Sincerely,

Name___________Address____________City___________ST____ Zip___

SAMPLE LETTER TO CONGRESS:

The Honorable ______________________, Washington, DC

In direct violation of the law, the FDA is threatening to ban my access to new dietary supplements.

The FDA defines dietary supplements as being “new” if they were introduced after October 15, 1994. That means that nutrients that I have been safely using over the course of three decades will be subject to FDA’s oppressive policies that mandate costly animal testing, which translates into forced withdrawal from the market, and higher prices for me if the supplement is ever allowed to be sold again.

The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 states that:

The Federal Government should not take any actions to impose unreasonable regulatory barriers limiting or slowing the flow of safe products and accurate information to consumers.”

It says that Congress finds that:

dietary supplements are safe within a broad range of intake, and safety problems with the supplements are relatively rare.”

And it says that:

legislative action that protects the right of access of consumers to safe dietary supplements is necessary in order to promote wellness.”

This draft guidance does the exact opposite of what Congress intended. It imposes unreasonable barriers that limit and slow the flow of safe products and accurate information to consumers. I call upon Congress to:

  1. Uphold the landmark legislation it passed seventeen years ago, and to direct the FDA to revise its New Dietary Ingredient draft guidelines to reflect DSHEA’s (and Congress’s) stated values and goals.
  2. Vote against the newly introduced Dietary Supplement Labeling Act as this would give the FDA even greater arbitrary powers to remove safe dietary supplements from the market, which will a profoundly adverse impact on this nation’s health.

All of these proposals results in wasteful federal spending, while imposing a massive new “regulatory tax” on consumers and the vitamin industry.

Kindly let me know what actions you are taking in response to the urgent issues raised in this letter.

Sincerely,

Name______________Address____________City___________ST____ Zip___

SAMPLE FOIA REQUEST:

Below is a sample letter that you can use to select one or more of the 19 listed requests for records, or create your own individual request. You can then copy, edit, print, and send this to the FDA at the address on the letter. Please note that you are committing to paying a $25.00 charge if FDA agrees to respond to your request. The more records you request, the greater the FDA fees are likely to be. If you choose to file a Freedom of Information Act request, please read this letter carefully.

Date: _____________
Food and Drug Administration

Division of Freedom of Information

Office of Shared Services

Office of Public Information and Library Services

12420 Parklawn Drive

ELEM-1029

Rockville, MD 20857

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear FOIA staff:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552, we wish to have copies at the earliest possible time, of any and all public records in the custody of the Food and Drug Administration that relate to the “Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues” released in July 2011.

I specifically request:

  1. All records relating to the expenditure of time and money by FDA personnel (and outside consultants) in researching, drafting and promulgating the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  2. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with pharmaceutical company representatives (including lobbyists) that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  3. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with any member of Congress or Congress as a whole that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  4. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with any member of private industry that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  5. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with any scientific advisory committee, scientific advisory board, or individual scientist that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  6. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with FDA’ General Counsel’s office, or outside legal counsel that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  7. All records relating to FDA’s evaluation of safety issues relating to new dietary ingredients that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  8. All records relating to FDA’s decision to impose barriers that limit the ability of consumers to access new dietary ingredients that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  9. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with other FDA personal that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  10. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with personal from the Department of Health and Human Services that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  11. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with personal from the U.S. Treasury Department that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  12. All records relating to the cost benefit analysis performed by FDA or outside consultants that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  13. All records relating to financial estimates made by FDA personnel or outside consultants relating to the cost to the FDA of administering the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  14. All records relating to financial estimates made by FDA personnel or outside consultants relating to the cost burden of the dietary supplement industry in complying with the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  15. All records relating to what human and other resources within the FDA would be utilized to oversee and administer the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  16. All records relating to what human and other resources within the FDA would be moved or transferred from other positions within the FDA in order to oversee and administer the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  17. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with the Department of Justice that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  18. All records relating to the steps taken by the FDA to ensure the Administrative Procedures Act was fully complied with as it relates to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
  19. All records relating to the steps taken by the FDA to ensure that provisions in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 was fully adhered to as it relates to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.

I agree to pay any and all expenses up to $25.00 related to this request. If you anticipate that the nature or volume of the records requested is such as to require extensive use of information technology, resources, or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance by personnel of the Food and Drug Administration, and such expenses would exceed $25.00, I would appreciate being advised thereof in advance of the assembly of those records and the estimated charge in excess of $25.00, if any, for doing so.

If the FDA asserts an exemption from Public Records Act disclosure of any records falling within the scope of the above request, we request that it include in the records inspected, or otherwise make available to us as soon as possible and in no event no later than the date of the initial production of the records, a reasonable description of the nature of the records for which an exemption or exemptions are claimed and the statutory or other legal bases under any such exemption is claimed.

I would appreciate your contacting me, at ___________ at the earliest possible time to advise us of when the FDA will make the requested copies available.

Please call if you have any questions regarding this request.

Sincerely,

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (2)

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

Obama Tells Farmer No Need to Worry About Over-Regulation of Agriculture

Posted on 18 August 2011 by admin

Obama Tells Farmer No Need to Worry About Government Over-Regulation of Agriculture

Thursday, August 18, 2011 – by Mike Adams

Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) During a town hall meeting yesterday, when an Illinois farmer told President Obama he was concerned about upcoming regulations regarding the Food Safety Modernization Act and would rather be farming than “filling out forms and permits,” Obama had choice words to offer in reply: “Don’t always believe what you hear.”

For once, Obama has told the truth. “Don’t always believe what you hear” should be the rally cry for all the farmers, raw dairy producers and consumers harmed by government actions taking place under the Obama administration – actions which can only be called war against the People and crimes against nature.

It was Obama’s USDA, for example, that approved genetically modified alfalfa to be openly planted everywhere, thereby contaminating non-GMO alfalfa crops with DNA pollution that’s impossible to remove from the harvest. This is the same USDA that also recently said it would do nothing to halt the release of GMO yard grass seeds into the marketplace.

Because of that decision, by the Spring of 2012, we could see genetically engineered lawns spouting up in neighborhoods all across America, where they will be frequently sprayed with toxic Roundup herbicide chemicals.

It was under President Obama that the FDA masterminded the recent armed raids on American raw dairy farmers by bringing a SWAT team to an L.A. food distribution center. There, under the watchful eye of federal government thugs, agents proceeded to pour all the milk down the drain, then seize and destroy tens of thousands of dollars worth of cheese, watermelons, mangos and other valuable food.

Obama, of course, could have stopped this outrageous incarceration of raw dairy farmers at any time but he stood back and said nothing. Perhaps he was too busy going on vacation to take any meaningful action to try to protect American farmers from gun-toting government tyrants.

It was under Obama’s watch that Michigan gardener Julie Bass was threatened with 93 days of jail time for growing tomatoes in her own front yard. While this wasn’t a federal case (it was drummed up by local tyrants who run the city of Oak Park), Obama could have easily intervened with a national message about “the freedom to garden.”

Where was Michelle Obama on this point in particular? The president’s wife can grow a garden on the White House lawn, but a mom in Oak Park Michigan can’t do the same on her own private property? Insane.

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

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

Rawesome Foods Raid – SWAT Poured Out RAW Milk!

Posted on 03 August 2011 by admin

Rawesome Foods raid!

Cops poured out the milk!

(2683 views) Uploaded 8/6/2011 12:42:04 PM by HealthRanger

http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=C39F34B67FDA804B2D94CD9BBA3F0A0A

Video Information

From the Rawesome Foods raid in Venice, California, this video is from the day of the raid and reveals how the government terrorists poured all the raw milk down the drain! Video courtesy of RealFoodRights.com

Video Keywords: food    health freedom    tyranny    raw milk    raw dairy    food freedom    rawesome foods   government raids

 

Health Ranger: ‘FDA fights organic farmers’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbE3SfvuL1g

 

 

(Rawesome Foods Raid) What Happened – by an employee


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjmYOoa14XY

Rawesome Raid August 3, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI1gvPmA_c8

 

Massive public protest announced against government-sponsored terrorism of Rawesome Foods in California

(NaturalNews) As promised, a massive public protest is now being announced to give the members of the public an opportunity to voice their outrage against today’s arrest of three raw foods advocates who are all being charged with conspiracy.

The protest will be held at the LA County Courthouse located at:
210 West Temple, Division 30
Los Angeles

Arrive there at 7:45 am to join the protest, which needs to be in full swing early, because the court hearing for James is scheduled at 8:30.

Please keep your protests non-violent in nature and bring your signs, shirts and more. LA newspapers and media have already indicated they will be on scene. NaturalNews video journalists will also be on the scene filming whatever goes down. Videos will be posted on www.NaturalNews.TV

Bring your own cameras, too, and record your own photos and videos. Please post on NaturalNews.TV and we will likely link to your video in upcoming coverage of this event.

We apologize for the very short notice of this public protest, but we are publishing details about this story as quickly as we can. The story is breaking big and has already reached millions of listeners on the Alex Jones Show (www.InfoWars.com) and millions of readers through the Drudge Report (www.DrudgeReport.com), which has linked to NaturalNews as the breaking news source for this story.

Once the mainstream media starts covering this story, they will twist it around and LIE about it as they always do. NPR already did a hatchet job on this group following a previous raid. Only independent media (like NaturalNews) can be trusted to bring you the honest story on this without some corporate or government agenda.

There are already misinformed accusations that Rawesome Foods was not licensed as a retail business. But that’s incorrect information: Rawesome Foods is a private buying club and not a retail business that’s open to the general public. People can’t just walk in off the street and shop there like a regular grocery store. Thus, Rawesome does not have to be licensed like a regular grocery store. They are a private buyer’s club.

What went down in Venice, California today was clearly an act of government-sponsored terrorism against innocent citizens who are only “guilty” of selling healthful foods that are in huge demand by happy, healthy members (customers). That the selling of healthful raw milk cannot even be tolerated by the thuggish, corrupt government criminals who run the state of California (and the federal government) today is a powerful statement of just how much freedom we’ve already lost… and how hard we’re all going to have to fight back against tyranny to restore our basic food freedoms.

Watch NaturalNews for more developments on this story, and thank you for spreading the word about this latest assault on food freedom in America.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033223_Rawesome_Foods_public_protest.html

 

“Rawesome” Raw Milk Farm Raided…Again

Rawesome Foods Co-Op

It has been reported this morning (August 3rd, 2011), that raw milk farm “Rawesome” in Venice, California has been raided once again by members of the SWAT team. With guns drawn, two of the owners arrested, and over $10,000 worth of raw milk dumped out, the freedoms of Americans are diminishing. There is, however, something we can do about it.

Rawesome Raid – Based on Public Health?

The excuse given for these absurd raids (that honestly casts embarrassment over the police force) is that raw milk is a health threat that causes listeria, e. coli disease and death. This certainly can be true for raw milk — but only if you are drinking raw milk from animals that are being raised in inhumane and poor conditions.

The actual excuse for the arrests and the raids have not yet been officially stated. Stay tuned for that news.

Clean, fresh raw milk from grass fed, free ranging animals, however, does not need to be pasteurized. Milk you purchase from a traditional grocery store does require pasteurization, as the farmers who raise these cows raise them in poor, dirty and sanitation conditions. Pasteurization is the answer for man’s dirty mistakes! Nature does not need to be cleaned, and man does not know more than nature.

Raw Milk Proven Safer than Other Commonly Sold Foods

Recent data from researcher Dr. Ted Beals, M.D., shows that between 1999 through 2010 illnesses resulting in raw milk consumption totaled to around462, which is about 42 illnesses per year. Out of the 47.8 million food borne illnesses each year from foods such as raw meat (which is readily available at every grocery store), peanut butter and spinach, it is very curious as to why raw milk is targeted so violently.

Up to 2011, it is estimated that close to 10 million individuals drink raw milk as its popularity rises. More and more individuals are starting to realize and wake up to the fact that are rights as citizens, when it comes to what we consume or inject in our bodies, are slowly being taken away.

We are supposed to be free. We are supposed to be able to make informed decisions on our health. With the majority of the population overweight, diabetic and prediabetic, shouldn’t we focus more attention on the foods that are actually threatening the health of the American population? Shouldn’t we be performing raids on sugary cereals that surpress immune function and accelerate cancer growth, learning disorders and blood sugar instability?

Read Natural News’ article on the illegal actions of the SWAT members and the raid.

http://thehealthyadvocate.com/2011/08/03/rawesome-raw-milk-farm-raided-again/

 

Breaking news: Multi-agency armed raid hits Rawesome Foods, Healthy Family Farms for selling raw milk and cheese

(NaturalNews) This is a NaturalNews exclusive breaking new report. Please credit NaturalNews.com. A multi-agency SWAT-style armed raid was conducted this morning by helmet-wearing, gun-carrying enforcement agents from the LA County Sheriff’s Office, the FDA, the Dept. of Agriculture and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control).

This story is now being followed and widely reported on InfoWars (www.InfoWars.com) and the Drudge Report (www.DrudgeReport.com). See updates below…

Rawesome Foods, a private buying club offering wholesome, natural raw milk and raw cheese products (among other wholesome foods) is founded by James Stewart, a pioneer in bringing wholesome raw foods directly to consumers through a buying club. James was followed from his private residence by law enforcement, and when he entered his store, the raid was launched.

Law enforcement demanded that all customers (members) of the store vacate the premises, then they demanded to know how much cash James had at the store. When James explained the amount of cash he had at the store — which is used to purchase product for selling there — agents demanded to know why he had such an amount of cash and where it came from.

James was handcuffed, was never read his rights and was stuffed into an unmarked car. While agents said they would leave behind a warrant, no one has yet had any opportunity to even see if such a warrant exists or if it is a complete warrant.

Law enforcement then proceeded to destroy the inventory of the story by pouring the milk down the drain and / or confiscating raw cheese and fresh produce for destruction. Video now posted at NaturalNews.TV: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A…

Note to NaturalNews readers: We believe this was an ILLEGAL raid being conducted mob-style by government thugs who respect no law and no rights. This is an all-out war by the government against people who try to promote healthy raw and living foods.

James is now being held at the Pacific division police department at Centinela and Culver in Los Angeles. He is being held at $123,000 bail with no possibility of using bail bonds. Law enforcement has demanded that if he comes up with the money to cover bail, he must disclose to them all the sources of that money. (This is an illegal demand!)

Massive public protests are needed to teach these criminal law enforcement agencies that they cannot illegally arrest and persecute individuals merely for buying and selling raw milk and cheese. We are organizing a public protest day in cooperation with James. Please watch NaturalNews for an announcement of that. Story is developing…

Right now, James needs help raising money with his legal defense needs. Our non-profit Consumer Wellness Center is currently serving as the collection point for donations. You may donate right now at www.ConsumerWellness.org (100% of the donations go directly to James’ legal defense needs, the Consumer Wellness Center keeps nothing).

See this video of James Stewart talking about his farm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foKg…

Story on InfoWars.com:

http://www.infowars.com/raw-food-ra…

Here’s background on Healthy Family Farms which was also targeted in the raid:

Healthy Family Farms in Santa Paula, California:

“Healthy Family Farms is a sustainable, pasture-based farming operation. We raise all our livestock on pasture. We raise all of our animals from birth. We do not feed any of our animals soy, choosing instead to feed animals as they are designed to be fed. This results in healthy, sturdy animals needing no hormones, antibiotics, or other artificial “enhancements.” We harvest our animals humanely by hand before they are delivered to the farmers markets. We never freeze our products. In addition to farmer’s markets sales, we have an active CSA, which offers discounts to our valued members.”

Watch NaturalNews.com for more breaking news on this story. We are fed up with these illegal mob-style raids against the raw foods community! It is time to protest and fight back against tyranny!

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033220_Rawesome_Foods_armed_raids.html

 

Rawesome Foods founder to be prosecuted under special environmental crimes unit in LA

(NaturalNews) Details are still sketchy on this, as we’re breaking this news straight from the front lines in the aftermath of the government raid on Rawesome Foods in Venice, California (http://www.naturalnews.com/033220_R…), but NaturalNews is now being told that the LA County District Attorney will not be prosecuting James Stewart and the other “conspirators” who were arrested yesterday for selling raw milk. Instead, a special “environmental crimes” prosecutor will reportedly be prosecuting the case, which now consists of 13 criminal charges, some of which are felony crimes.

NaturalNews has not yet learned the name of this special environmental prosecutor, but the explanation smacks of the new environmental police who have been promoted through various propaganda outlets as being upstanding protect-the-Earth cops who arrest people for burning too much gas or using non-recyclable cups to drink beverages.

The issue of environmental police has been covered extensively by Alex Jones at InfoWars.com, where he refers to them as eco fascists. See this page to read more about how propaganda ads are being used to get people comfortable with the idea that “environmental crimes” should result in police slamming your face into the ground and handcuffing you:

http://www.infowars.com/audis-eco-f…

The videos on that page have been disabled, but here’s an alternate link of the green police Superbowl Ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq58

(Astonishing ad. You MUST watch it.)

The real aim of the green police agenda

Far from being a campaign merely to protect the Earth (which would be great if it were true), the new “green police” agenda is now being used as a way to terrorize innocent Americans as we’re seeing right now with Rawesome Foods. What’s especially frustrating about all this is that some of the Al Gore followers who largely supported the idea of the green police are, in fact, the very same people who are now being targeted for advocating raw milk. They had been misled, sadly.

You see, eco fascism was never really about protecting the planet and promoting sustainable living. It was always about enslaving the population, destroying health freedom, and mandating total corporate conformity at gunpoint. That’s the lesson we’re now learning from the Rawesome Foods raids, where LA County Sheriffs literally poured thousands of dollars worth of wholesome raw milk down the drain and arrested the buying club owner who will be prosecuted as by a special environmental prosecutor.

For the record, I’m a huge advocate of green living, renewable energy, and green consumer practices — but NOT at the cost of surrendering our Constitutional freedoms to a group of government badge-wearing eco terrorists who raid our raw milk clubs and charge people with conspiracy crimes for “mislabeling cheese.” I believe in solar power, I raise my own chickens and grow a portion of my own food NOT because Al Gore told me to, but because it just makes common sense in today’s unpredictable world to be prepared for food supply disruptions and power grid failures.

I try to minimize my eco-footprint on the planet not because some bureaucracy forces me to, but because I want to support the long-term continuation of sustainable life on our planet. Yes, I’m “green” in my daily practices, and at the same time I’m strongly invested in the powerful ideas of liberty and freedom for individuals. “Green” should never mean we have to mean we give up our freedoms. Forcing people to “go green” at the end of a gun isn’t acceptable. It must be done through education and awareness.

Green cops are no better than regular corrupt cops

It’s very clear to me that much of the political talk about saving the planet and going green was really just a campaign to encourage people to surrender their freedoms to yet another tyrannical enforcement bureaucracy that will abuse its power just like every other government agency abuses its power. “Green police” is just another excuse to put tens of thousands of new badge-wearing power trippers on the streets who will terrorize innocent citizens.

And that’s really, really sad, because I think the core idea of “going green” in our day-to-day lives is extremely valuable and valid. We should stop pouring toxic chemicals down the drain. We should collect rainwater and drink that instead of drinking toxic city water. And for that matter, our own government should stop dumping toxic fluoride chemicals into the water supply in the first place!

Meanwhile, the real environmental threats to our planet — such as the Fukushima meltdowns, the toxic chemicals produced by Big Pharma, and the DNA contamination of our planet with GMOs — remains totally ignored. That’s how this game always works: The big corporate criminals run free while the little people are persecuted in the name of “green.”

How insane is it, really, that this raw milk and cheese buyer’s club is now being prosecuted by the very same people who were given power by the green police movement?

All I can say is, beware of creating new police in any form, because when you create police, military or political forces that have power of your lives, they will ALWAYS abuse that power. Eventually, every bureaucracy or institution becomes totally corrupted by corporate influence, and then it no longer serves the people but the corporatocracy that really runs the show.

Notice that all the wealthy elite who pay no corporate taxes and fly around in private jets aren’t being targeted for arrest by the green police? There’s a reason for that. The whole campaign is designed to muzzle the little guy and remind the slaves that they’re really just slaves.

Pay attention, SLAVE. Drink your dead pasteurized milk, take your psychotropic drugs, gulp down your fluoridated water and shut the hell up. You’re under the control of the new eco fascists now, and it’s no longer just talk. It’s all coming to a farm near you.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033233_green_police_environmental_crimes.html

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Greenpeace Destroys GMO Wheat trial in Australia

Posted on 14 July 2011 by admin

Greenpeace’s own photo of their criminal activity in destroying the wheat trial in ACT, Australia

 

Greenpeace recently enlisted Vandana Shiva to protest on their behalf about GM wheat trialsunderway in Australia. Vandana Shiva endorses criminal arson as direct actionagainst scientific laboratories she disproves (explicit video interview).

Now Greenpeace — by their own self-acknowledged vandalism — are following Vandana Shiva (Sydney Peace [sic] Prize recipient)  into the cesspool of criminality.

.

Greenpeace destroys GM wheat
Jessica Nairn, ABC Radio 666 Canberra
Updated July 14, 2011 11:08:36

Greenpeace protesters have broken into a CSIRO experimental farm in Canberra to destroy a crop of genetically modified wheat.

In the early hours of this morning a group of Greenpeace protesters scaled the fence of the CSIRO experimental station at Ginninderra in the capital’s north.

Greenpeace says activists were wearing Hazmat protective clothing and were equipped with weed string trimmers.

They say the entire crop of genetically modified wheat has been destroyed.

About half a hectare of GM wheat is being grown on the site, as part of Australia’s first outdoor trials.

No genetically modified wheat strain had ever been approved for cropping in Australia before.
Last month the CSIRO received permission to conduct Australia’s first trial in which humans will eat GM wheat.

The wheat’s genes have been modified to lower the glycemic index and increase fibre to create a product which will improve bowel health and increase nutritional value.

Animal feeding trials of up to three months have been conducted, with human trials at least six months away.

Greenpeace says it has taken action because of concerns over health, cross-contamination and the secrecy surrounding the experiments.

Campaigner Laura Kelly says the Federal Government needs to put an end to testing GM wheat in Australia.

She says parts of the United States and many countries throughout Europe have already rejected the crop, and Australia should do the same.

“No one is looking after the health of Australians. Julia Gillard isn’t standing up to foreign GM countries to protect our daily bread so Greenpeace has to,” she said.

ACT Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury used to work for Greenpeace and says he is not surprised the group has taken such action.

“It’s always very controversial these sorts of actions, but you have to stand up for what you believe in sometimes,” he said.

“Greenpeace has clearly formed a view that the best way to both draw attention to this issue and to potentially protect the human food chain in Australia is to take this action.”

Mr Rattenbury says Greenpeace has a track record of breaking the law to highlight problems.
“I’ve certainly been involved in action in the past where Greenpeace has broken the law and that has been necessary to highlight what we’ve considered at the time to be a greater issue than perhaps a simple trespass,” he said.

ACT police have confirmed they are investigating but have not released any further information.

GM crop destroyed
BY STAFF REPORTERS (Canberra Times)
14 Jul, 2011 09:08 AM

…ABC radio reported that the four protesters scaled the fence at the secure facility in Ginninderra wearing full-body Hazmat protective clothing.

Greenpeace have confirmed at least two women scaled the fence, including one mother, Heather McCabe*, who is concerned about her family’s health.

“This GM wheat should never have left the lab,” said Ms McCabe.

“I’m sick of being treated like a dumb Mum* who doesn’t understand the science. As far as I’m concerned, my family’s health is too important. GM wheat is not safe, and if the Government can’t protect the safety of my family, then I will.”

Canberra Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury [Pundit note:former Greenpeacer staffer] this morning condoned the action on ABC Radio, citing Greenpeace’s long-held opposition to GM crops, and saying that sometimes the end justified the means.

The site was being used to grow some of the first outdoor GM wheat crops in Australia, and trials were due to begin on human consumption of the modified wheat.

“We had no choice but to take action to bring an end to this experiment,” said Greenpeace Food campaigner Laura Kelly in a release this morning.

“This is about the protection of our health, the protection of our environment and the protection of our daily bread.

“It is time Julia Gillard stood up to global biotech companies and protected Australia’s daily bread. With public health and our largest food export under threat, this is too big an issue for the Prime Minister to continue to ignore.”

Police are investigating the incident.

There is a  Heather McCabe on the Greenpeace pay-roll according to linked-in. The dumb Mum treatment thus may be related to her place of employment.
Updates:
Robust reader comment thread

BY EWA KRETOWICZ, CITY REPORTER, Canberra Times
15 Jul, 2011 06:57 AM
Scientists have lost a year of work and up to $300,000 after Greenpeace activists destroyed a crop of genetically modified wheat at Ginninderra.
The CSIRO has labelled the act a media stunt and will review its security procedures….
The GM trials were conducted under licences from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator which imposes strict containment conditions.
CSIRO Plant Industry chief Jeremy Burdon said the wheat was modified to increase yield and improve nutritional value. He denied the government-funded science body had links to multinational biotechnology company Monsanto.
”I don’t see the grounds under which anyone should be concerned about the level of integrity the CSIRO [employs in its] experimental work,” Dr Burdon said.
He said the GM crops were safe.
”Gene silencing basically allows you to turn off genes and manipulate existing genes within a plant. It’s not like some GM products where you bring in a gene from a totally different species. In this case, you are simply taking the existing genes that are there and turning them on or off.”…
From: “Australian Academy of Science”
Subject: Media Release – GM Crop destruction unacceptable: Academy of Science
(14 July 2011)
GM Crop destruction unacceptable: Australian Academy of Science
The Australian Academy of Science today condemned last night’s destruction of a scientific trial of genetically modified crops at CSIRO in Canberra by Greenpeace activists.
“The Academy condemns this behaviour in the strongest possible terms,” said Academy President Professor Suzanne Cory.
“This kind of mindless vandalism against science is completely unacceptable.”
Professor Cory said scientists must be free to conduct their work without fear or favour.
“The trials are being conducted under licences from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator [official Australian Government gene technology regulatory agency] which impose strict containment conditions,” Professor Cory said.
“These conditions have been deliberately breached by Greenpeace.
“For an organisation that claims to be dedicated to the protection of the environment, this is an unconscionable act.”
Australian Farmers React:
Thursday 14 July 2011

Press release Grain Producers of Australia

GRAIN PRODUCERS SLAM GREENPEACE STUNT

Australian Grain Producers have today called for Greenpeace to be reprimanded and appropriate

action taken, following the destruction of CSIRO wheat field trials in Canberra.

“The destruction of world class science is absolutely despicable.  Attacking the research that supports Australian farmers is the same as attacking Australian farmers and generally we are sick of it. It is irresponsible, unethical and in this case illegal” said Mr Peter Mailler, Chairman, Grain Producers Australia.

Mr Mailler said .”CSIRO is an iconic organisation, responsible for many of the agricultural advancements that enable Australian farmers to produce the cleanest, safest and healthiest food and fibre that feeds and clothes hundreds of millions of people across the globe every year ”

“GM wheat is seven to ten years away, CSIRO has been responsibly conducting GM wheat field trials at this site for fourteen years. Today’s Greenpeace actions are totally unacceptable,” he said.

“Plant science and research and development are critical to the future of our industry,” said Mr Andrew Weidemann, R&D spokesperson, Grain Producers Australia.

“Australian farmers are highly innovative and have continued to adapt to changes in climate, customer requirements and the global operating environment, but we cannot achieve ongoing production without new tools and technologies,” he said.

“Gene technology is a proven and safe plant science. GM crops have been grown, traded and consumed around the world for fourteen years, delivering significant agronomic, environmental and sustainable outcomes,” he said.

“Today’s illegal Greenpeace activity has once and for all proven what many of us have feared for quite some time – Greenpeace is not interested in green outcomes or sustainable agriculture and food production. This is purely a non-factual, high profile fund raiser and Australian consumers need to be aware of this,” said Mr Weidemann.

Pruducers Forum Press release 14 July 2011

FARMERS CONDEMN GREENPEACE ASSAULT

Today the multi-million dollar multi-national Greenpeace continued its assault on Australian agriculture and in doing so revealed its true nature. By illegally entering the CSIRO property and deliberately destroying trial plots at the site, the Greenpeace activists and those who support them are making a mockery of Australia’s dearly held democratic rights and freedoms. “Our farmers are appalled at the unconscionable actions of the trespassers and believe that they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,” said Heather Baldock, National Convenor of Producers Forum.

“People have been contacting me to express their outrage and wondering what we can do about it. Civil protest is one thing. Wilful, illegal, destruction is something else entirely and must be roundly condemned,” she continued. “This is the nation’s property yet we have individuals, egged on by a multi-national NGO, willing to destroy it. It is hardly a wonder people are outraged,” Ms Baldock said.

“Australian farmers are innovators. Adopting new tools, techniques and technologies have allowed them to be among the best in the world, made possible by the support of Australian scientists and research organisations.

“The research and development (R&D) and innovation that today allows Australian farmers to produce the safe, healthy and affordable food that consumers value and expect continues to be needed to face the challenges of food production into the future. Our farmers are rightfully proud of the quality, quantity and variety of foods they produce,” Ms Baldock added.

Wayne McKay farms in the Central West of NSW. He says that the Australian grain industry strongly supports R&D in all facets of agriculture including  GM crops, and notes that the rate of production increase in Australia has declined and that Australians do not need fear mongering naysayers trying to undermine and destroy valuable R&D that supports agriculture and food production.

“Australia’s CSIRO is recognised world-wide as a first class   research organisation. The scientists working in the fields of molecular biology and gene technology operate within the processes and guidelines set down by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and our regulatory system is widely regarded as among the best in the world.

“To imply that these scientists are doing anything that would harm Australians or any other people is quite  imply and demonstrably wrong. It certainly does Greenpeace no credit,” Mr McKay said.

“Attacking our CSIRO is a bit like attacking motherhood,” he said.

Ms Baldock says that the community must question Greenpeace’s motives in attacking a technology that is good for the environment, and helps small farmers in developing nations to become more self sufficient.

COSMOS magazine are on the job.

Greenpeace targets CSIRO crops

Thursday, 14 July 2011

by Myles Gough

Cosmos Online

SYDNEY: In the early hours of July 14, Greenpeace protestors gained illegal entry into an experimental CSIRO operated farm near Canberra and destroyed a crop of genetically modified (GM) wheat….

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , ,

GMO Protests greet opening of new Gates Foundation campus

Posted on 04 June 2011 by admin

By AGRA Watch

“The technologies that are promoted by the Gates Foundation in Africa are not farmer-friendly or environmentally friendly. Some of them have not been tested fully to determine their effects on the environment and consumers. African farmers are seeking food sovereignty, not imposed unhealthy foods and GMOs!” – Kenyan farmer and director of the Grow Biointensive Agricultural Center of Kenya (G-BIACK), Samuel Nderitu

Seattle, WA – On the public opening day of the new Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation campus in Seattle, local activists called attention to the negative aspects of the Foundation’s agricultural development efforts in Africa.  Although farmers, activists, and civil society organizations throughout Africa and the US have pointed to fundamental problems with the programs of the Foundation and its subsidiary, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), the Foundation has been non-responsive to these concerns.

The majority of the projects funded by Gates promote high-tech industrial agricultural methods and market-driven development – privatizing seed, lobbying for genetically modified crops, increasing farmer debt alongside corporate profits, and encouraging land consolidation.  The Foundation’s “theory of change” acknowledges that this approach will ultimately push many small-scale African farmers off of their land, driving them into the cities to swell the numbers of unemployed and marginalized – but seems unperturbed by such consequences.  Thus, the agricultural development agenda on the continent is being determined from Seattle instead of locally, and control over African food systems is being transferred from farmers to transnational corporations.

Local activists emphasize that they support drawing on traditional and indigenous agricultural knowledge, as well as incorporating new technologies into African farming; however, those technologies need to be small-scale, not dependent upon foreign capital, and environmentally and socially sustainable – in other words, agroecological.

“To feed 9 billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available,” says Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food and author of a report issued two months ago. “Today’s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live – especially in unfavorable environments.”

De Schutter goes on to stress that agroecology is not anti-technology: “Agroecology is a knowledge-intensive approach. It requires public policies supporting agricultural research and participative extension services.”

This echoes the earlier findings of a 2008 study sponsored by the World Bank and the UN. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) is the most comprehensive scientific assessment of world agriculture to date, relying  on the expertise of more than 400 international scientists and endorsed by fifty-eight countries in the global North and South (though not the United States, Canada or Australia).

The IAASTD found that small-scale sustainable agriculture, locally adapted seed and ecological farming better address the complexities of climate change, hunger, poverty and productive demands on agriculture in the developing world than industrial agriculture and high-tech fixes like genetic engineering.

Unfortunately, the Foundation’s outdated approach remains to be harmonized with the growing body of scientific literature in support of agroecological farming. Instead, as observed by Kenyan farmer and director of the Grow Biointensive Agricultural Center of Kenya (G-BIACK), Samuel Nderitu, “The technologies that are promoted by the Gates Foundation in Africa are not farmer-friendly or environmentally friendly. Some of them have not been tested fully to determine their effects on the environment and consumers. African farmers are seeking food sovereignty, not imposed unhealthy foods and GMOs!”

These and other concerns being raised by the communities who will be most affected by the Gates Foundation’s work have yet to be meaningfully addressed. Most recently, a petition with over 1500 signatures and a sign-on letter to the Foundation, co-authored by AGRA Watch and La Via Campesina North America and endorsed by over 100 organizations, academics, and scientists from around the world, have been similarly ignored. This lack of engagement calls into question the Foundation’s claims of transparency and accountability.

“As citizens of the US and Seattle,” notes University of Washington Professor Emeritus Phil Bereano, “we give the Foundation many benefits – tax breaks, closing off streets for this campus – and we are entitled to know exactly what it is doing in its efforts to change the world. Great wealth brings great responsibilities, as Bill Gates Senior has often noted.”

AGRA Watch, a project of Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global Justice, supports African initiatives and programs that foster farmers’ self-determination and food sovereignty. AGRA Watch also supports public engagement in fighting genetic engineering and exploitative agricultural policies, and demands transparency and accountability on the part of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and AGRA, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa.

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

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

2 Mexican States Ban GMO Corn

Posted on 05 March 2011 by admin

The Mexican States of Tlaxcala and Michoacán each passed legislation banning the planting of genetically modified corn to protect natural plants from further contamination of transgenes.  Together, both states produce about a third of all of Mexico’s corn. Below this story is a detailed timeline of genetic contamination and legislation in Mexico.

By Aleira Lara
Greenpeace

It’s been an exciting couple of months in the debate over Mexican maize with some good news for Mexican agriculture and biodiversity. However, the consequences of recent frosts in northern states and the aggressive propaganda of the industry is still putting at risk Mexican’s basic grain. Here’s the latest:

GM FREE STATES ARISING IN MEXICO:

Because of the lack of interest of federal government to protect the large diversity of Mexican maize against the contamination of GM crop, Michoacán State congress passed by a majority the “Law of Promotion and Protection of Native Maize as Alimentary Patrimony of Michoacán State”, which will allow the protection of 18 of the 59 races of this crop that exist in Mexico. Michoacán is the fourth largest maize producer on a national scale and represents 30 percent of Mexico’s total maize crop area.

Michoacán’s initiative follows the recent approval of the “Law of Promotion and Protection of Native Maize as an original patrimony, in constant diversification, and alimentary for Tlaxcala State”. Both states decided to go ahead with the protection of such an important crop for Mexican society.

This process is directly related to the lack of political will of the federal government to promote local production and the fierce interest of multinational companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Pioneer and Dow Agroscience to impose GM maize within Mexican territory. We hope that this process will continue and that more and more states will protect their maizes races, especially the northern states that are currently developing GM maize experimental trials such as “Sinaloa” and “Chihuahua”.

Learn more about the origin and diversity of maize in the American continent, TlaxcalaMichoacán.

ANOTHER DEFEAT FOR MONSANTO

In January, the secretary of agriculture announced his decision to deny pilot trials to Monsanto in the State of Sinaloa – principal producer of white corn for human consumption in Mexico. Pilot trials are the next step after the experimental stage.We have been working hard in this state, facing the will of local authorities that are closely linked to the industry and have distributed GM maize propaganda widely within the region.

Recently we’ve released a new report ““Cultivos transgénicos: cero ganancias” (GM crops,zero profit”) in local meetings. Moreover, in 2007 we made a formal complaint to theProcuraduría General de Protección al Ambiente (Profepa) (Environment Protection Agency).We received additional information in 2010 related to the irregularities in GM trials in Sinaloa state. We published this information and we asked for the suspension of experimental trials in the country. Here is the what the government press release had to say: This is why all Federal Government resolutions are based in scientific principles are decided impartially according to the Law of Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms and all the implications it has of official institutions that are concerned”

Read the whole press release in Spanish.

BIOTECH INDUSTRY’S PROPAGANDA AFTER BAD HARVESTS

On the other side, the consequences of recent frosts in northern states on maize production and the aggressive propaganda of the industry is still putting Mexican’s basic grain at risk.

Our warnings to the Mexican government have fallen on deaf ears and now the tragic loss of more than 5 millions foods grain confirms our worse fears: a model that neglects and excludes indigenous and small corn producers from public policies, that ignores and doesn’t take care of the ecological production and instead concentrates the nation’s resources in mono-crop industrial agriculture is vulnerable to massive failure. The biotech industry won’t hold back and wants to take advantage of the recent crisis to push forward the planting of its transgenic seeds as the magic tool against climate extremes. We are fighting hard to counter these false statements despite of their strong lobbying. The biotech companies are trying to take advantage of a dramatic situation directly related to the economical model they represent.Our struggle for Mexican maize, people and agriculture is still on, and we hope that this year will be full of victories for our campaign, in order to prevent Mexico to be a center of origin of a basic grain to liberate the GM crop on a commercial scale within its territory.

TIMELINE

(Data thru 2006 from History Commons)

1998: Mexico Bans GM Crops

Mexico bans the planting of genetically modified crops. [Mother Jones, 7/9/2002]

July 1999: Grupo Maseca Says it will Stop Using GM Corn

Grupo Maseca, Mexico’s top producer of corn flour, says it will phase out its use of genetically modified corn. Mexico purchased $500 million of US corn in 1998. [Food & Drink Weekly, 9/13/1999Canadian Business, 10/8/1999]

October 2000: Genetically Modified Genes Found in Native Mexican Maize

Dr. Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist, and his assistant, David Quist, a graduate student at UC Berkeley, discover the presence of genetically modified (GM) genes in native Mexican maize growing in the remote hills of Oaxaca, Mexico. The contaminant genes contain DNA sequences from the cauliflower mosaic virus, which is often used as a promoter to “switch on” insecticidal or herbicidal properties in GM plants. Contamination is also found in samples from a government food store that purchases animal feed from the US. The Oaxaca region is considered to be the birthplace of maize and the world’s center of diversity for corn, “exactly the kind of repository of genetic variation that environmentalists and many scientists had hoped to protect from contamination,” the New York Times reports. Scientists worry that the genes could spread through the region’s corn population reducing its genetic diversity. Critics of genetically modified crops have long argued that the technology cannot be contained. According to Dr. Norman C. Ellstrand, evolutionary biologist at University of California at Riverside, the discovery “shows in today’s modern world how rapidly genetic material can move from one place to another.” The findings are not good news for the biotech industry which is currently lobbying Brazil, the European Union, and Mexico to lift their embargoes on genetically modified crops. [New York Times, 10/2/2001; Manchester Guardian Weekly, 12/12/2001; BBC, 3/13/2002] It is later learned that the contamination resulted from Oaxacan peasants planting kernels they purchased from a local feed store. Though there’s a moratorium on the growing of GM crops, there’s no such ban on animal feed containing GM seed. [Cox News, 10/2/2001]

September 18, 2001: Mexican Government Says It Has Found GM Contamination in Native Mexican Maize

Mexico’s Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources announces that it has found genetically modified (GM) corn growing in 15 different localities. It began investigating potential GM contamination after two Berkeley scientists found maize growing in Oaxaca (see October 2000) that was contaminated with genetically engineered DNA sequences from the cauliflower mosaic virus. [New York Times, 10/2/2001] Mexico does not release its study until January 2002 (see January 2002).

(Late 2001): Ecologist Warned Not To Publish Study on GM Contamination in Mexico

When Dr. Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist who recently discovered the presence of genetically modified (GM) genes in Mexican maize (see October 2000), meets with a Mexican agricultural official to discuss the GM contamination, he is warned not to publish his research. Chapela later recalls in an interview with BBC Newsnight, “He [told] me how terrible it was that I was doing the research and how dangerous it would be for me to publish.” When he refuses to back off the issue, the official suggests that Chapela join a research team tasked with proving that the suspected GM genes are actually naturally occuring gene sequences similar to the ones in GM corn. “We were supposed to find this in an elite scientific research team of which I was being invited to be part of and the other people were two people from Monsanto and two people from Dupont supposedly… .” Monsanto denies its scientists were involved in any such study. Chapela also meets with Mexico’s Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources, whose officials are concerned about the discovery. They launch their own investigation and also find evidence of contamination (see September 18, 2001). [BBC, 6/2/2002]

Late November 2001: Berkeley Scientists Publish Study on GM Contaminated Maize in Mexico

Berkeley grad student David Quist and Dr. Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist, publish the results of a study (see October 2000) finding that native Mexican maize has been contaminated with genetically modified genes. The study—published by the British journal Nature after an eight-month long peer-review process—presents two arguments. In addition to reporting the discovery that some of Oaxaca’s maize contains transgenic material, the paper says they found transgene fragments scattered throughout the plants’ modified DNA. [Quist and Chapela, 11/29/2001 ]The study’s second conclusion causes a controversy because it contradicts the assertions of the biotech industry that genetic engineering is a safe and exact science, and that the technology is capable of controlling precisely where the modified sequences are positioned, how they will be expressed, and whether or not they will be passed on to successive generations. One of the main arguments of the technology’s detractors is that the methods used to insert trangenic genes into an organism’s DNA cannot be done with accuracy and therefore are liable to produce unpredictable and undesirable effects. Following the publication of Quist and Chapela’s article, other Berkeley biologists—who work in a Berkeley University program partially funded by Syngenta, a major biotech firm—criticize the study, leading Quist and Chapela to acknowledge that the analyses of two of the eight gene sequences in their paper were flawed. However they stand by their conclusions that the remaining six sequences contained scattered modified gene sequences. Critics of the article also note that both Quist and Chapela strongly oppose the genetic engineering of crops and participated in an unsuccessful effort to block the Berkeley-Syngenta partnership. The issue soon grows into a very large controversy that some suggest is fueled by the efforts of the biotech industry, and in particular, the Bivings Group, a PR firm on Monsanto’s payroll. Forum postings at AgBioWorld.org are reportedly traced to a Bivings’ employee. It is also noted that another person posting on the forum makes “frequent reference to the Center for Food and Agricultural Research, an entity that appears to exist only online and whose domain is [allegedly] registered to a Bivings employee.” Bivings denies that it is in any way connected to the forum postings. In spite of the controversy surrounding the article’s second finding, the other conclusion, that Mexico’s maize has been contaminated, is largely uncontested, and is buttressed by at least three other studies (see January 2002February 19, 2003-February 21, 2003). [Associated Press, 4/4/2002East Bay Express, 5/29/2002;BBC, 6/2/2002Mother Jones, 7/9/2002]

January 2002: Mexican Environmental Ministry Publishes Study on Transgenic Contamination in Mexican Maize

Mexico’s Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources publishes the results of its study (see September 18, 2001) on transgenic contamination in Oaxaca and nearby Puebla. The study found contamination levels between 3 and 13 percent in eleven communities and between 20 and 60 percent in four others. Tests conducted on maize sold in government food stores revealed that 37 percent contained the GM genes. [East Bay Express, 5/29/2002]

April 2002: British Science Journal Pulls Support for Article on GM Contamination in Mexico

In an unprecedented move, Nature runs an editorial pulling its support for a controversial study by Berkeley scientists David Quist and Dr. Ignacio Chapela on genetic contamination of native Mexican maize. The study, published the previous fall (see Late November 2001), reported that native maize in Oaxaca had been contaminated with genetically modified (GM) genes and that transgene fragments were found scattered throughout the plants’ modified DNA. Immediately after being published, the article came under attack by pro-GM scientists who disputed Quist’s and Chapela’s second finding. “In light of these discussions and the diverse advice received, Nature has concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper,” the journal’s editor, Philip Campbell, writes. “As the authors nevertheless wish to stand by the available evidence for their conclusions, we feel it best simply to make these circumstances clear, to publish the criticisms, the authors’ response and new data, and to allow our readers to judge the science for themselves.” Though the journal withdraws its support, it does not retract the article. [Associated Press, 4/4/2002East Bay Express, 5/29/2002Mother Jones, 7/9/2002] The decision to withdraw support is based on the opinions of three unnamed independent experts whom Nature consulted. Only one of those experts, however, disputed Quist’s and Chapela’s finding that there was evidence of contamination. All three agreed that the second finding—that transgene fragments were scattered throughout the plants’ modified DNA—was flawed. [BBC, 6/2/2002]

April 18, 2002: Mexico Finds More Evidence of GM Contamination in Native Mexican Maize

Jorge Soberon, the executive secretary of Mexico’s biodiversity commission, announces that government scientists have confirmed that genetically modified (GM) corn is growing in Mexico. The finding supports what two US scientists reported several months earlier (see Late November 2001) in a highly controversial paper published in the journal Science. Calling it the “world’s worst case of contamination by GM material,” he says 95 percent of the sites sampled in Oaxaca and Puebla were found to have GM maize. Samples taken from these sites indicated a contamination level as high as 35 percent. [Daily Telegraph, 4/19/2002Mother Jones, 7/9/2002]

January 2003-August 2003: More GM Contamination Discovered in Mexico

A study conducted by a coalition of North American civil society organizations finds that cornfields in nine Mexican states—Chihuahua, Morelos, Durango, Mexico State, Puebla, Oaxaca, San Luis Potosi, Tlaxcala, and Veracruz—are contaminated with genetically modified (GM) DNA. A total of 2,000 plants from 138 farming and indigenous communities are tested. Contaminated corn is discovered in 33 of these communities, or 24 percent. Contamination levels vary from 1.5 percent to 33.3 percent. Some plants are found to contain as many as four different types of GM DNA—one herbicide-resistant variety and three Bt varieties, including Starlink, which is banned for human consumption in the US. Several plants in at least one of the contaminated fields are deformed. “We have seen many deformities in corn, but never like this,” Baldemar Mendoza, an indigenous farmer from Oaxaca, says during a news conference. “One deformed plant in Oaxaca that we saved tested positive for three different transgenes. The old people of the communities say they have never seen these kinds of deformities.” [ETC Group, 10/11/2003]

October 29, 2004: Canada and Mexico Adopt Looser Standards Regulating the Import of GM Contamination Feed

The US, Mexico, and Canada enter into a trilateral agreement that allows food and grain shipments to have GM contamination levels as high as 5 percent. Shipments containing less than the five percent level will only have to bear a label indicating that the grain may contain genetically modified organisms. Additionally, accidental contamination of corn shipments into Mexico will not trigger any labeling requirements. Only the distributor will have to be informed of the contamination. The Mexican government enters into the agreement without the Mexican Senate’s approval. [Associated Press, 2/26/2004] Critics of the deal say the US is attempting to protect agricultural biotech companies and US agriculture. A large percentage of the country’s crop is genetically modified and as a result US farmers and biotechs are having a tough time finding markets abroad. Raising the acceptable contamination limits in other countries will help increase US grain exports. Critics also say that the deal could have a dramatically adverse effect on the genetic diversity of Mexico’s maize. It could result in the planting of more genetically modified corn since small farmers have been known to occasionally plant feed as seed. A few years before, maize growing in Oaxaca and Puebla was discovered to contain genetically modified genes (see October 2000April 18, 2002). It is believed that the contamination was caused in part by farmers who had planted feed from local stores selling grain imported from the US. The ETC Group, a Canadian-based organization that is opposed to genetically modified crops, warns that if Mexico permits the import of grain with such high levels of contamination, the country’s “maize crop would be riddled with foreign DNA from the Rio Grande to Guatemala in less than a decade.” [ETC Group, 2/26/2004]Greenpeace believes that US efforts to convince countries to lower the accepted levels of contamination are aimed at undermining the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (see January 24-29, 2000), which has been set up to regulate transboundary shipments of genetically modified organisms.[Greenpeace, 2/11/2004]

October 9, 2006: Mexico Denies Permits to Biotechs to Plant GE Corn in Northern States

The Mexican Department of Agriculture turns down all seven requests filed by biotech companies to plant experimental fields of genetically engineered corn in northern Mexico. Companies that applied for permits included Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., and others. [Associated Press, 10/18/2006]

March 6, 2009 Mexico lifts ban on GM maize

Mexico has lifted the ban on experimental cultivation of transgenic maize imposed in 1999 in this country where the crop was first domesticated and shaped human culture. Biotech giants have put forward two dozen projects for approval and have announced investments of 382 million dollars up to 2012. The green light was given by the government of conservative President Felipe Calderón to the trials, by means of an executive decree which came into force early this month. [Farming UK, 3/19/09]

Calderon took office under a storm of controversy over election fraud in the 2006 election, prompting millions to protest. The protests were crushed by US and Mexican military. (Click here for links to several news reports, plusthis one by Al Giordana.)

Also see Phantoms in the machine: GM corn spreads to Mexico by author and filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin (The World According to Monsanto), Aug. 19, 2010.

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

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.

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

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

FDA rules won’t require labeling of genetically modified salmon

Posted on 18 September 2010 by admin

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

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

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

FLUORIDE IN FOOD

Posted on 10 August 2010 by admin

FLUORIDE IN FOOD
©1996 – 2009 PFPC
see also:
Part II
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

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

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

Bottled Waters Sorted by Fluoride Content

Posted on 09 August 2010 by admin

Mineral Waters of the World

Sorted by Fluoride (F-)

Average 0.878611959654179 mg/l (694 Waters)

1. Aguas Verdes 151 mg/l
2. Kristina 10.06 mg/l
3. Koktem 10 mg/l
4. Studenac 9.6 mg/l
5. St. Yorre 8 mg/l
6. Malavella 7.7 mg/l
7. Vichy Catalan 7.3 mg/l
8. Mlynsky 7.02 mg/l
9. Fontaine de la Reine Naturelle 6.1 mg/l
10. Hissaria 5 mg/l
11. Vichy Célestines 5 mg/l
12. Salus-Vidago 4.4 mg/l
13. Pagosa Springs 4.3 mg/l
14. St. George’s Well 4.05 mg/l
15. Alp’s 4 mg/l
16. Devin 4 mg/l
17. Trinity Springs 3.6 mg/l
18. Astra Quelle 3.4 mg/l
19. Mitterbad 3.4 mg/l
20. Original Zurzacher 3.4 mg/l
21. Aqui 3.2 mg/l
22. Mihalkovo 3.2 mg/l
23. Chateuneuf Auvergne 3 mg/l
24. Christinen Brunnen 3 mg/l
25. Ueberkinger 3 mg/l
26. Alpha 2.8 mg/l
27. Harmatviz 2.8 mg/l
28. Ramlösa 2.8 mg/l
29. Colfax 2.5 mg/l
30. Hardenstein Brunnen 2.5 mg/l
31. Pedras Salgadas 2.5 mg/l
32. Slatina 2.46 mg/l
33. Antonin 2.45 mg/l
34. César 2.45 mg/l
35. Saint Alban 2.45 mg/l
36. Flitz 2.4 mg/l
37. Freyersbacher Alexanderquele 2.4 mg/l
38. Freyersbacher Scharzwälder 2.4 mg/l
39. Kristalyviz 2.4 mg/l
40. Labertaler Sebastiani Brunnen 2.3 mg/l
41. Pinalito 2.3 mg/l
42. Apenta 2.2 mg/l
43. Vincentka 2.13 mg/l
44. Amanda 2.1 mg/l
45. Kisslegger 2.1 mg/l
46. Orée du Bois 2.1 mg/l
47. Quézac 2.1 mg/l
48. Aguas de Sousas 2 mg/l
49. Châteldon 2 mg/l
50. Lostorfer 2 mg/l
51. Maarum 2 mg/l
52. Saint Amand 2 mg/l
53. Saint Amand Vauban 2 mg/l
54. Schwefelwasser Innichen 2 mg/l
55. Wattwiller 2 mg/l
56. Eico-Quelle 1.93 mg/l
57. Hanácká Kyselka 1.91 mg/l
58. Birgy 1.9 mg/l
59. Mattoni 1.9 mg/l
60. Vernet 1.9 mg/l
61. Budis 1.86 mg/l
62. Villavicencio 1.84 mg/l
63. Villavicencio 1.83 mg/l
64. Eptinger 1.8 mg/l
65. King Milos Natural Mineral Water 1.71 mg/l
66. Bad Cortina 1.6 mg/l
67. Claudia 1.6 mg/l
68. Lavaredo 1.6 mg/l
69. Villavicencio 1.6 mg/l
70. Visegr´di 1.6 mg/l
71. Ondrasovka 1.53 mg/l
72. Aqua Vita 1.5 mg/l
73. Kingshill Forest Glade < 1.5 mg/l
74. Saint-Grégoire 1.5 mg/l
75. Santovka 1.5 mg/l
76. Sierra de los Padres < 1.5 mg/l
77. Zwestener Löwensprudel 1.5 mg/l
78. Zwestener Löwensprudel Heilwasser 1.5 mg/l
79. Schlossquelle Friedrichsroda 1.46 mg/l
80. Acqua di Nepi 1.4 mg/l
81. Cristalp Saxon 1.4 mg/l
82. Dax 1.4 mg/l
83. Fonte Giulia 1.4 mg/l
84. Radenska – Vrelec Miral 1.4 mg/l
85. Uliveto 1.4 mg/l
86. Kizilay 1.35 mg/l
87. Podebradka 1.34 mg/l
88. Nova Friburgo 1.33 mg/l
89. Arcens 1.3 mg/l
90. Hilequelle St. Leonhard 1.3 mg/l
91. Kurfürst 1.3 mg/l
92. Manera 1.3 mg/l
93. Arcens 1.2 mg/l
94. Arkina Yverdon 1.2 mg/l
95. Augustowianka 1.2 mg/l
96. Czerniawianka 1.2 mg/l
97. Güssinger 1.2 mg/l
98. Grosser Stollen 1.2 mg/l
99. Leopoldsquelle 1.2 mg/l
100. Monchique 1.2 mg/l
101. San Vigilio 1.2 mg/l
102. Sarbi-Arka 1.2 mg/l
103. Patricia 1.19 mg/l
104. Fonte Ijui 1.16 mg/l
105. Bad Moos 1.1 mg/l
106. Bad Pedraces 1.1 mg/l
107. Fortuna Quelle 1.1 mg/l
108. Juwel 1.1 mg/l
109. Salacia 1.1 mg/l
110. Santa Maria alle Capannelle 1.05 mg/l
111. Hirschquelle Heilwasser Bad Überkingen 1.04 mg/l
112. Warburger Waldquell 1.04 mg/l
113. Artesia-Quelle 1.02 mg/l
114. 18 Carats 1 mg/l
115. Bad Kochenmoos 1 mg/l
116. Badarijan 1 mg/l
117. Badoit 1 mg/l
118. D’Montana < 1 mg/l
119. Eau de Source – Source Idrel 1 mg/l
120. Elisabethenquelle Heilwasser 1 mg/l
121. Fiée de Lois 1 mg/l
122. Fontaine Jolival 1 mg/l
123. Fonte Celta 1 mg/l
124. Fonte Santagata 1 mg/l
125. Heidiland 1 mg/l
126. Idrel 1 mg/l
127. Kellerwald 1 mg/l
128. L’Oiselle 1 mg/l
129. Malki 1 mg/l
130. Montclair 1 mg/l
131. Natural Spring 1 mg/l
132. Saratica 1 mg/l
133. Sneeuberg 1 mg/l
134. Sun Spring Eau de Source 1 mg/l
135. Vertiente 1 mg/l
136. Wah Water 1 mg/l
137. Kekkuti 0.98 mg/l
138. Acqua Amerino 0.95 mg/l
139. Amerino 0.95 mg/l
140. Bad Neuenahrer Heilwasser 0.95 mg/l
141. Stahlquelle Gais 0.95 mg/l
142. Stegbach-Quelle 0.92 mg/l
143. Acqua Lilia 0.9 mg/l
144. Agua de Carabaña 0.9 mg/l
145. Arvie 0.9 mg/l
146. Calistoga Mineral Water 0.9 mg/l
147. Himalayan 0.9 mg/l
148. Jamnica 0.9 mg/l
149. Teinacher 0.9 mg/l
150. S. Maria degli Angeli 0.86 mg/l
151. Selters 0.85 mg/l
152. Wilhelmsquelle Heilwasser 0.84 mg/l
153. Bad Griesbacher Natürliches Heilwasser 0.82 mg/l
154. Kaiserwasser 0.82 mg/l
155. San Bernardino 0.82 mg/l
156. Falcon 0.8 mg/l
157. Fontana (Malta) 0.8 mg/l
158. Kawther 0.8 mg/l
159. Kronthaler 0.8 mg/l
160. Rhäzünser 0.8 mg/l
161. Steinsieker 0.8 mg/l
162. Thanh Tan 0.8 mg/l
163. Theodora Quelle 0.8 mg/l
164. Vitinka 0.8 mg/l
165. H2O Alps 0.79 mg/l
166. Bad Dürrheimer 0.76 mg/l
167. Al-Qassim 0.75 mg/l
168. Chantereine 0.75 mg/l
169. Clairelle 0.75 mg/l
170. Valmont 0.75 mg/l
171. Gavernia 0.73 mg/l
172. Özkaynak 0.72 mg/l
173. Adelheidquelle 0.7 mg/l
174. Carola Rouce – Source du Cahteaux 0.7 mg/l
175. Dobra Voda 0.7 mg/l
176. Ferrarelle 0.7 mg/l
177. Peñaclara 0.7 mg/l
178. Perling 0.7 mg/l
179. Remstaler 0.7 mg/l
180. Roccabianca 0.7 mg/l
181. Thachbich 0.7 mg/l
182. Toka 0.7 mg/l
183. Villa del Sur 0.7 mg/l
184. Römerwall Quelle 0.68 mg/l
185. Oberselters 0.67 mg/l
186. Almasif 0.66 mg/l
187. Saskia Quelle 0.66 mg/l
188. Valser 0.63 mg/l
189. Frauenholzener Mineralbrunnen 0.62 mg/l
190. Rheinfels Quelle 0.62 mg/l
191. Bad Altprags 0.6 mg/l
192. Biskirchener Karlssprudel 0.6 mg/l
193. Cellier 0.6 mg/l
194. Eiszeitquell 0.6 mg/l
195. Giant Springs 0.6 mg/l
196. Honey 0.6 mg/l
197. Krakowianka 0.6 mg/l
198. Majan 0.6 mg/l
199. Pure Montana 0.6 mg/l
200. Rhön Sprudel 0.6 mg/l
201. Safi 0.6 mg/l
202. Spanchevtzi 0.6 mg/l
203. Tezh Sar 0.6 mg/l
204. Varshetz 0.6 mg/l
205. Crystal Tropical 0.59 mg/l
206. Gasteiner 0.58 mg/l
207. Heppinger Extra 0.58 mg/l
208. Kurselter Heilwasser 0.58 mg/l
209. Göppinger St. Christophorus Heilwasser 0.57 mg/l
210. Leisslinger 0.57 mg/l
211. Tau Frisch 0.57 mg/l
212. Bad Salomonsbrunn 0.55 mg/l
213. Fatra 0.55 mg/l
214. Ibira 0.55 mg/l
215. Palmense del Piceno 0.55 mg/l
216. Augusta Victoria 0.54 mg/l
217. Bad Pyrmonter Heilwasser 0.54 mg/l
218. Imnauer Apollo 0.53 mg/l
219. Bad Mergentheimer Albertquelle 0.52 mg/l
220. Crystal (Br) 0.52 mg/l
221. Our Compliments Pure Spring Water 0.52 mg/l
222. San Pellegrino 0.52 mg/l
223. Severinquelle 0.52 mg/l
224. Imnauer Fürstenquellen Eugenie-Quelle 0.51 mg/l
225. Penafiel 0.51 mg/l
226. Altmühltaler 0.5 mg/l
227. Aqua Africa 0.5 mg/l
228. Bad Valdander 0.5 mg/l
229. Ben Haroun 0.5 mg/l
230. Cabreiroa 0.5 mg/l
231. Eisenwasser Innichen 0.5 mg/l
232. Font del Regas 0.5 mg/l
233. Hello 0.5 mg/l
234. Imnauer Fürstenquellen 0.5 mg/l
235. Kaiser Friedrich Heil-Quelle-N 0.5 mg/l
236. Nanton Edge-of-the-Rockies Water 0.5 mg/l
237. Narelle 2 0.5 mg/l
238. Olden 0.5 mg/l
239. Pureza Vital 0.5 mg/l
240. Radenska – Vrelec Radin 0.5 mg/l
241. Rhenser 0.5 mg/l
242. San Andrés < 0.5 mg/l
243. Sansu 0.5 mg/l
244. Sepidan 0.5 mg/l
245. Siwa 0.5 mg/l
246. Staropolanka 2000 0.5 mg/l
247. Viladrau 0.5 mg/l
248. Vis – Sorgente del Ciliegio 0.5 mg/l
249. Ileburger Schlossbrunnen 0.48 mg/l
250. Imnauer Fürstenquellen Heilfüllung 0.48 mg/l
251. Ensinger Schiller Quelle 0.47 mg/l
252. Friedrich Christian Heilwasser 0.47 mg/l
253. Minéré 0.47 mg/l
254. Parley’s Canyon 0.46 mg/l
255. Alborz 0.45 – 0.5 mg/l
256. Bad Bergfall 0.45 mg/l
257. Bad Lad 0.45 mg/l
258. Lahnfelsquelle 0.45 mg/l
259. Signum 0.45 mg/l
260. Vallée Noble 0.45 mg/l
261. Ensinger Schiller Heilwasser 0.44 mg/l
262. Kootenay Springs 0.44 mg/l
263. Marien Brunnen 0.44 mg/l
264. Quelle Acht Bornheim 0.44 mg/l
265. Basinus Quelle 0.43 mg/l
266. Cavagrande 0.43 mg/l
267. Hogsback Montaine 0.43 mg/l
268. Lindóia Premium 0.43 mg/l
269. Federica della Fonte S. Giacomo 0.425 mg/l
270. König Otto-Sprudel 0.42 mg/l
271. Mazowszanka 0.42 mg/l
272. Neue Otto-Quelle 0.42 mg/l
273. Puits St-Georges 0.42 mg/l
274. Fountainhead 0.41 mg/l
275. Mivella 0.41 mg/l
276. Agua de Mondariz 0.4 mg/l
277. Agua Sana 0.4 mg/l
278. Alpenrose 0.4 mg/l
279. Aqua Fennica 0.4 mg/l
280. Aqua Minerale (Poland) 0.4 mg/l
281. Bad Salt 0.4 mg/l
282. Badewasserquelle Tisens 0.4 mg/l
283. Chaudfontaine 0.4 mg/l
284. Davina 0.4 mg/l
285. Eifel-Quelle 0.4 mg/l
286. Eisenquelle Kastelruth 0.4 mg/l
287. Galvanina 0.4 mg/l
288. Lotterbad 0.4 mg/l
289. Mineral Natural Drink Water 0.4 mg/l
290. Mondariz 0.4 mg/l
291. Northern Crystal 0.4 mg/l
292. Perfectly Pure 0.4 mg/l
293. Polla 0.4 mg/l
294. Pracastello 0.4 mg/l
295. President’s Choice 0.4 mg/l
296. Safa 0.4 mg/l
297. Sanct Zacharias 0.4 mg/l
298. Sofrino 0.4 mg/l
299. Solan de Cabras 0.4 mg/l
300. Sousas 0.4 mg/l
301. Dijamant 0.39 mg/l
302. Ilidzanski Dijamant 0.39 mg/l
303. Basinus Sinus-Quelle 0.38 mg/l
304. Daflora 0.38 mg/l
305. Sangemini 0.38 mg/l
306. St. Antonius Heilwasser 0.38 mg/l
307. Wielka Pieniawa 0.38 mg/l
308. Emstaler Brunnen 0.37 mg/l
309. Römer Brunnen Heilwasser 0.36 mg/l
310. S. Silvestro 0.36 mg/l
311. Alto 0.35 mg/l
312. Aqua Nori 0.35 mg/l
313. Montinverno 0.35 mg/l
314. Orucoglu 0.35 mg/l
315. Schwefelquelle Wengen 0.35 mg/l
316. Alfa Blue 0.34 mg/l
317. Dreiser Sprudel 0.34 mg/l
318. Dunaris Heilwasser 0.34 mg/l
319. Fontanel – Eau de Source Poiraudière 0.34 mg/l
320. Fontoise 0.34 mg/l
321. Juraiska 0.34 mg/l
322. Aura 0.33 mg/l
323. First (China) 0.33 mg/l
324. Lithinia 0.33 mg/l
325. Pulmuone Saemmul 0.33 mg/l
326. Römerquelle 0.33 mg/l
327. Contrex 0.32 mg/l
328. Rhodius Fellbuhr-Quelle 0.32 mg/l
329. S. Angelo 0.32 mg/l
330. Sylt Quelle 0.32 mg/l
331. alwa 0.31 mg/l
332. Nürburgquelle 0.31 mg/l
333. St. Anna Heilwasser 0.31 mg/l
334. Aix les Bains 0.3 mg/l
335. Artus Dreikönigsquelle 0.3 mg/l
336. Augusta 0.3 mg/l
337. Bad Egard 0.3 mg/l
338. Boario 0.3 mg/l
339. Evita 0.3 mg/l
340. Font Jaraba 0.3 mg/l
341. Güstrover Schlossquell 0.3 mg/l
342. Georg-Viktor-Quelle Heilwasser 0.3 mg/l
343. Gesundbrunnen 0.3 mg/l
344. Herrather Jungbrunnen 0.3 mg/l
345. Juvina 0.3 mg/l
346. Krynka 0.3 mg/l
347. Lüttertaler 0.3 mg/l
348. Ludwig-1-Quelle 0.3 mg/l
349. Mühringer 0.3 mg/l
350. Nestlé Pure Life 0.3 mg/l
351. Rangauer life Heilwasser 0.3 mg/l
352. S. Giorgio 0.3 mg/l
353. Saint Springs 0.3 mg/l
354. Sancarlo Spinone 0.3 mg/l
355. Staatl. Bad Brückenauer 0.3 mg/l
356. Staatlich Fachingen Heilwasser 0.3 mg/l
357. Swiss Alpina 0.3 mg/l
358. Tauferer Badl-Quelle 0.3 mg/l
359. Zrodlana 0.3 mg/l
360. Alpestre Alpina 0.29 mg/l
361. Mount Olympus 0.29 mg/l
362. Pandur Heilwasser 0.29 mg/l
363. Radenska – Kraljevi Vrelec 0.28 mg/l
364. St. Margareten Heilwasser 0.28 mg/l
365. Trenque 0.28 mg/l
366. Vita Star 0.28 mg/l
367. Vittel 0.28 mg/l
368. Cristalina 0.27 mg/l
369. Dreikönigsquelle 0.27 mg/l
370. Karlsquelle Heilwasser 0.27 mg/l
371. Maxbrunnen Heilwasser 0.27 mg/l
372. Naleczowianka 0.27 mg/l
373. Oriol 0.27 mg/l
374. Qua-ter 0.27 mg/l
375. Rakoczy Heilwasser 0.27 mg/l
376. Bad Wildunger Georg-Viktor-Quelle 0.26 mg/l
377. Saratoga Springs 0.26 mg/l
378. Saratoga Springs 0.26 mg/l
379. Genuina Lindoya 0.25 mg/l
380. Katadin 0.25 mg/l
381. Maestro 0.25 mg/l
382. Mountain Valley Spring 0.25 mg/l
383. Natual Icelandic Mineral Water 0.25 mg/l
384. Pinar Madran 0.25 mg/l
385. Randegger Ottilien-Quelle 0.25 mg/l
386. Sannine 0.25 mg/l
387. Römerquelle Mainhardt Heilwasser 0.24 mg/l
388. Schloss Quelle 0.24 mg/l
389. SilberQuelle 0.24 mg/l
390. Bad Mergentheimer Karlsquelle 0.23 mg/l
391. Club 0.23 mg/l
392. Piwniczanka 0.23 mg/l
393. Tönissteiner 0.23 mg/l
394. Volcan 0.23 mg/l
395. ActiveO2 0.22 mg/l
396. Adelholzener 0.22 mg/l
397. Helenen Quelle Heilwasser 0.22 mg/l
398. Pelisterka 0.22 mg/l
399. Prata (Br) 0.22 mg/l
400. Gerolsteiner Sprudel 0.21 mg/l
401. St. Michaelis 0.21 mg/l
402. Überwasser 0.2 mg/l
403. Adelbodner 0.2 mg/l
404. Alaska < 0.2 mg/l
405. Alpia 0.2 mg/l
406. Alpquell < 0.2 mg/l
407. Avanus 0.2 mg/l
408. Baldovska 0.2 mg/l
409. Calistoga Mountain Spring Water 0.2 mg/l
410. Catskill Mountains 0.2 mg/l
411. Cedar Springs 0.2 mg/l
412. Cruziero 0.2 mg/l
413. Delta (Egypt) 0.2 mg/l
414. Donat 0.2 mg/l
415. Eau Claire 0.2 mg/l
416. Eco Water Predela 0.2 mg/l
417. Font d’Or 0.2 mg/l
418. Fontanis Karl Eugen Quelle Natürliches Heilwasser 0.2 mg/l
419. Golden Valley 0.2 mg/l
420. Harghita 0.2 mg/l
421. Hartz Mineral Water 0.2 mg/l
422. Himalayan 0.2 mg/l
423. Himalayan 0.2 mg/l
424. Hoop 0.2 mg/l
425. Hydroxydase 0.2 mg/l
426. Iceland Spring 0.2 mg/l
427. Kelechin 0.2 mg/l
428. La Vie 0.2 mg/l
429. Les Creus 0.2 mg/l
430. Mühringer Heilwasser 0.2 mg/l
431. Marwa 0.2 mg/l
432. Monte Cimone < 0.2 mg/l
433. Mount Seaview Spring Water 0.2 mg/l
434. Mountain Lite 0.2 mg/l
435. Narelle 1 0.2 mg/l
436. Naya (Mirabel) 0.2 mg/l
437. Naya (Revelstoke) 0.2 mg/l
438. Naya (St.André Est) 0.2 mg/l
439. Niagara 0.2 mg/l
440. Oeybad-Quelle 0.2 mg/l
441. Oxygizer 0.2 mg/l
442. Pallars 0.2 mg/l
443. Perthshire Mountain Spring < 0.2 mg/l
444. Preblauer 0.2 mg/l
445. Purple Parrot 0.2 mg/l
446. Schillerbrunnern Bad Lauchstädt < 0.2 mg/l
447. Schwefelquelle Kastelruth 0.2 mg/l
448. Sorgente Sovrana 0.2 mg/l
449. St. Martin 0.2 mg/l
450. Sun Spring Eau de Glacier 0.2 mg/l
451. Zephyrhills 0.2 mg/l
452. Adonis Heilwasser 0.19 mg/l
453. Rocky Mountain Spring 0.19 mg/l
454. San Marino 0.19 mg/l
455. Vrnjacko Vrelo 0.19 mg/l
456. Wernarzer Heilwasser 0.19 mg/l
457. Multivita Blue Label 0.183 mg/l
458. Aquila 0.18 mg/l
459. Bad Wildunger Reinhardsquelle 0.18 mg/l
460. Chambon 0.18 mg/l
461. Famous Natural Deep Well Mineral Water 0.18 mg/l
462. Izvir 0.18 mg/l
463. Lichtenauer 0.18 mg/l
464. Montfras 0.18 mg/l
465. Schönbergquelle 0.18 mg/l
466. Serra do Segreda 0.18 mg/l
467. St. Andrew 0.18 mg/l
468. Vilsa 0.18 mg/l
469. Donat Mg 0.17 mg/l
470. Hillcrest Spring Water, Inc. 0.17 mg/l
471. Orezza 0.17 mg/l
472. Pan 0.17 mg/l
473. Schönbornquelle 0.17 mg/l
474. AquaLine 0.16 mg/l
475. Brandenburger Urstromquelle 0.16 mg/l
476. Muszyna Zdroj 0.16 mg/l
477. San Giuliano 0.16 mg/l
478. Sound of Alps 0.16 mg/l
479. Tap water Geneva – Eau du Lac 0.16 mg/l
480. Tap water Geneva – Réseau Arve 0.16 mg/l
481. Tap water Geneva – Réseau Nappe 0.16 mg/l
482. Wittenseer Quelle 0.16 mg/l
483. Yaksan 0.16 mg/l
484. Aix les Bains 0.15 mg/l
485. Castellina 0.15 mg/l
486. Fontanis Natürliches Mineralwasser 0.15 mg/l
487. Golden Eagle 0.15 mg/l
488. Kumsu Natural Mineral Water 0.15 mg/l
489. Roche Claire 0.15 mg/l
490. St. Gero Heilwasser 0.15 mg/l
491. Studena 0.15 mg/l
492. Tiba 0.15 mg/l
493. Ty Nant 0.148 mg/l
494. Aquella (De) 0.14 mg/l
495. Cerelia 0.14 mg/l
496. Damavand 0.14 mg/l
497. Eau de Montagne 0.14 mg/l
498. Krumbach 0.14 mg/l
499. Markus Quelle 0.14 mg/l
500. Purborn 0.14 mg/l
501. Rocchetta 0.14 mg/l
502. Solé 0.14 mg/l
503. Valle Reale 0.14 mg/l
504. Multivita Green Label 0.136 mg/l
505. Aqua Antonia 0.134 mg/l
506. Magnesia 0.134 mg/l
507. Aveta Celtic Goddess of Healing Waters 0.13 mg/l
508. Bad Wildunger Helenenquelle 0.13 mg/l
509. Capès 0.13 mg/l
510. Harz-Quell Brunnen 0.13 mg/l
511. Hechtl Plus Sauerstoff 0.13 mg/l
512. Labertaler Stephanie Brunnen 0.13 mg/l
513. Silvana 0.13 mg/l
514. Auburg Quelle 0.12 mg/l
515. Carat 0.12 mg/l
516. Fatsu 0.12 mg/l
517. Frankenbrunnen Hochstein-Quelle 0.12 mg/l
518. Karat 0.12 mg/l
519. Knutwiler 0.12 mg/l
520. Passugger 0.12 mg/l
521. Perrier 0.12 mg/l
522. Sakhre 0.12 mg/l
523. San Dessano 0.12 mg/l
524. Assindia 0.11 mg/l
525. Brandenburger Waldquelle 0.11 mg/l
526. Cobb Mountain Natural Spring Water 0.11 mg/l
527. EartH2O 0.11 mg/l
528. Fontenoce 0.11 mg/l
529. Mildstedter Urquelle 0.11 mg/l
530. Samaria 0.11 mg/l
531. Sytylos 0.11 mg/l
532. Acqua Panna < 0.1 mg/l
533. Acqua Silva < 0.1 mg/l
534. Aloisius Quelle 0.1 mg/l
535. AQA < 0.1 mg/l
536. Aqua Mathias 0.1 mg/l
537. Aqua Pura < 0.1 mg/l
538. Aquamine 0.1 mg/l
539. Arctic Chiller 0.1 mg/l
540. Arctic Glacier 0.1 mg/l
541. Ashbourne 0.1 mg/l
542. Aston Manor Malvern Springs 0.1 mg/l
543. Autenrieder Schlossgartenquelle 0.1 mg/l
544. Avita 0.1 mg/l
545. Borga < 0.1 mg/l
546. Caledonian Spring < 0.1 mg/l
547. Campsie Spring 0.1 mg/l
548. Caramulo 0.1 mg/l
549. Chiltern Hills 0.1 mg/l
550. Chispal 0.1 mg/l
551. Cristal 0.1 mg/l
552. Decante < 0.1 mg/l
553. Dobrawa 0.1 mg/l
554. Eau de Chamonix < 0.1 mg/l
555. Elmer Mineralwasser < 0.1 mg/l
556. Extaler 0.1 mg/l
557. Finkenbach Quelle 0.1 mg/l
558. Flavia 0.1 mg/l
559. Fontessa Elm < 0.1 mg/l
560. Glencairn Spring 0.1 mg/l
561. Glendale Spring (UK) 0.1 mg/l
562. Glendale Spring (Zimbabwe) 0.1 mg/l
563. Gold Aqua 0.1 mg/l
564. Gontenbad < 0.1 mg/l
565. Grigna < 0.1 mg/l
566. Harilds Kildevand < 0.1 mg/l
567. Heldenspruit 0.1 mg/l
568. Henniez 0.1 mg/l
569. Highland Spring < 0.1 mg/l
570. Jana 0.1 mg/l
571. Jaworowy Zdroj 0.1 mg/l
572. Kilimanjaro (Tanzania) 0.1 mg/l
573. Krumbach 0.1 mg/l
574. Kryniczanka 0.1 mg/l
575. Lakeland Spring Water 0.1 mg/l
576. Lauré Pristine Spring Water 0.1 mg/l
577. Lentula 0.1 mg/l
578. Linton Park < 0.1 mg/l
579. Lithgow Valley < 0.1 mg/l
580. Lora Recoaro < 0.1 mg/l
581. Ludovicus 0.1 mg/l
582. Mineral Water 0.1 mg/l
583. Mountain Forest Spring Water 0.1 mg/l
584. Neverfail Spring Water < 0.1 mg/l
585. Norwegian Spring Water < 0.1 mg/l
586. Palomar Mountain Spring Water 0.1 mg/l
587. Paraviso 0.1 mg/l
588. Pieve 0.1 mg/l
589. Pourshins 0.1 mg/l
590. Rain Farm 0.1 mg/l
591. Reinhards-Quelle Heilwasser 0.1 mg/l
592. Rosbacher Gloria Quelle 0.1 mg/l
593. Royal Mountain Natural Spring Water < 0.1 mg/l
594. Salopian Springs 0.1 mg/l
595. San Benedetto (It) < 0.1 mg/l
596. Santa Claus Spring Water 0.1 mg/l
597. Solares 0.1 mg/l
598. Solares 0.1 mg/l
599. Sorgente Pura 0.1 mg/l
600. Spirit Water 0.1 mg/l
601. Stella Alpina (Za) < 0.1 mg/l
602. Strathglen Spring 0.1 mg/l
603. Strathmore Spring 0.1 mg/l
604. Stretton Hills 0.1 mg/l
605. Tap water Munich 0.1 mg/l
606. Tap water Zurich 0.1 mg/l
607. Tuzla Icmeleri 0.1 mg/l
608. Tuzlanski Kiseljak 0.1 mg/l
609. Vesi Vatten 0.1 mg/l
610. West Best Natural Spring Water 0.1 mg/l
611. Winifred Springs < 0.1 mg/l
612. Zywiec Zdroj 2 0.1 mg/l
613. Angel 0.091 mg/l
614. Abbey Well 0.09 mg/l
615. Kissinger Bitterwasser Heilwasser 0.09 mg/l
616. Radnor Hills 0.09 mg/l
617. Sao Lourenco (Br) 0.09 mg/l
618. Silenca Quelle 0.09 mg/l
619. Erikli 0.088 mg/l
620. Acquafine 0.08 mg/l
621. Adelholzener Heilwasser 0.08 mg/l
622. Adena 0.08 mg/l
623. Aytac 0.08 mg/l
624. Blue Keld Spring Water 0.08 mg/l
625. Circuito das Águas 0.08 mg/l
626. Edena 0.08 mg/l
627. Königsteiner Raderheck-Quelle Heilwasser 0.08 mg/l
628. Monteforte 0.08 mg/l
629. Santangel 0.08 mg/l
630. Staatl. Bad Brückenauer Heilwasser 0.08 mg/l
631. Água Mineral Kaiary 0.07 mg/l
632. Billur Su 0.07 mg/l
633. Chantilly 0.07 mg/l
634. Fonte Alpina Vaia 0.07 mg/l
635. Prinzenburger Felsenquelle 0.07 mg/l
636. SnoZone 0.07 mg/l
637. Yukon Spring 0.07 mg/l
638. Deep Rock 0.064 mg/l
639. Aquaplus 0.061 mg/l
640. Aqua Terrena < 0.06 mg/l
641. Bistra (Croatia) 0.06 mg/l
642. Caroline Mountain Water 0.06 mg/l
643. El Castano 0.06 mg/l
644. ICE MIST < 0.06 mg/l
645. Luso < 0.06 mg/l
646. Mountain Spring 0.06 mg/l
647. St. Georges 0.06 mg/l
648. Sugarloaf Spring Rain 0.06 mg/l
649. Vigezzo 0.06 mg/l
650. Özpinar 0.05 mg/l
651. Allegra 0.05 mg/l
652. Ashridge 0.05 mg/l
653. Aurora 0.05 mg/l
654. Bad Pyrmonter 0.05 mg/l
655. Fratelli Vita 0.05 mg/l
656. Güzelpinar 0.05 mg/l
657. Izvorul Minunilor 0.05 mg/l
658. Korytnica 0.05 mg/l
659. Long Life 0.05 mg/l
660. Pansu 0.05 mg/l
661. Rosbacher Ur-Quelle 0.05 mg/l
662. Siete Fuentes 0.05 mg/l
663. St. Leonhardsquelle 0.05 mg/l
664. Fenix 0.047 mg/l
665. Lindóya Verão 0.045 mg/l
666. Chiarella 0.04 mg/l
667. Frida 0.04 mg/l
668. Levissima (Br) 0.04 mg/l
669. Lumiar 0.04 mg/l
670. Sarajevska Voda 0.04 mg/l
671. Zaros 0.04 mg/l
672. Multivita Red Label 0.034 mg/l
673. Celtic (F) 0.03 mg/l
674. Crystal Falls 0.03 mg/l
675. Himalaia 0.024 mg/l
676. Alet < 0.02 mg/l
677. Amorosa 0.02 mg/l
678. Aquasana 0.02 mg/l
679. Basler Trinkwasser < 0.02 mg/l
680. Bioleve 0.02 mg/l
681. Camorei 0.02 mg/l
682. Canyon 0.02 mg/l
683. Famous Crazy Natural Mineral Water < 0.02 mg/l
684. Famous Premium Drinking Water < 0.02 mg/l
685. Hildon < 0.02 mg/l
686. Itaipu 0.02 mg/l
687. Sveti Rok 0.02 mg/l
688. Zala 0.02 mg/l
689. Fonte Caiçara 0.017 mg/l
690. Glyndwr 0.01 mg/l
691. Camlibel 0.0027 mg/l
692. Santa Croce 0.002 mg/l
693. Águas da Mata Atlântica < 0.001 mg/l
694. Peterstaler Mineralwasser some mg/l

Note: only brands with this content are displayed

RB Health Affiliate Program – Precision formulations for health and sexual wellness including pills, capsules, creams and much more. RB Health offers exclusive products for penile enhancement, bust enhancement, hormone balancing, vitamines and minerals, sexual stimulants, all the way

source: Mineral Waters of the World

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Advertise Here
Advertise Here