• Salad Dressings
• Infant Formula
• Bread, Rolls, Pastry
• Baby Cereal
• Canned rolls and breads
• Hamburgers and Hotdogs
• Margarine
• Processed Meats
• Mayonnaise
• Crackers
• Chocolate
• Cookies
• Candy
• Fried Foods
• Frozen Foods
• Chips
• Tofu
• Veggie Burgers
• Soy Burgers
• Meat Substitutes
• Aspartame
• Ice Cream
• Frozen Yogurt
• Tamari
• Soy Sauce
• Soy Cheese
• Soy Nuts and Products
• Processed Cheese
• Pasteurized Cheese
• Tomato Sauce
• Marinades
• Barbeque Sauce
• Soups
• Canned Stews
• Sauces
• Dried and Dehydrated Soups/Sauces
• Condiments
• Drinks
• Protein Powder
• Baking Powder
• Alcohol
• Vanilla
• Peanut Butter
• Pasta
• Enriched Flour
• Powdered Sugar
• Children’s snacks
• Cereals
• Cake and Baking Mixes
• Frozen pie and pastry shell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Eric Schlosser, author, Fast Food Nation

With consumer interest in how food is produced on the rise, many food companies are now selling new lines of “natural” products – often priced unjustifiably higher than conventionally produced foods and only slightly lower than certified organic products.  These purportedly “natural” products often mislead consumers about healthy food choices.

Market surveys show that health conscious consumers buy and trust products that prominently display the word “natural” on the front of food packages, even though the “natural” claim does not necessarily deliver any added health benefits to consumers above and beyond those of their conventionally manufactured counterparts.

ConAgra is one such company using a “100% Natural” labeling claim to win over consumers.  ConAgra’s Wesson Oils, however, are anything but “100% natural” – because the oils are made from genetically modified (GM) plants.

ConAgra sells four types of widely used cooking and food preparation oils under the Wesson brand. All Wesson Oils are sold with a label on the front of the bottle that prominently states they are “100% Natural.”

[The Center for Food Safety is] looking for [consumers] who have purchased any of the following cooking oils in the last few years sold under the Wesson brand name: Canola Oil, Vegetable Oil, Corn Oil, and Best Blend. If you have purchased these products believing them to them to be “100% Natural” and not to contain genetically engineered ingredients, please contact… adeeringer@icta.org right away. Please include “Wesson” in your subject line and your state of residence in your email.

(NaturalNews) Soy, once touted as a medical miracle, has been outed. Ninety-one percent of the soy we consume is tainted by the filth of the GMO machine, literally the most quietly kept epidemic of our lifetime. Soy makes up a large portion of the diet for the chickens, pigs, and cows some of us eat. Even the vegetarian/vegan community is exposed as a number of meat substitutes list soy as a main ingredient. Soy and soybean oil have wiggled their way into a wide array of processed foods including salad dressings, peanut butter, tamari, mayonnaise, crackers, baby formula, baked good mixes, textured vegetable protein, and the list goes on. So unless you are eating anorganicversion of any of the above, there is a good chance you are exposing yourself toGMO soy.

Genetically engineeredcropsare destroying theenvironment, the health of indigenous communities, and ultimately ourhealthas end of the chainconsumers. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has reported a number ofstudies. Their results? Frightening. Think major issues like infertility (http://www.responsibletechnology.or…), immune problems, accelerated aging, and even changes in the cellular structure of major organs (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/). Also, as a result of theantibioticresistant genes within GEfood, they are the highly suspected culprits behind the new “superbug.” The animals involved in the studies ended up deformed, sterile, and dead.

Children are the most susceptible to these harmful effect, since they are constantly in a state of high growth; parents should take care. GMOfoods, and especiallysoy, have been tied to an increase in allergies, asthma, and a propensity to get antibiotic resistant infections.

None of this would surprise any of the individuals in variousSouth Americacountries that live near GM crops. South America is the world’s largest provider of soy (http://www.naturalnews.com/031382_G…).

A recent story in theUK Telegraph(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea…) revealed that the herbicides used on GM soy are so toxic that direct contact oftenresultsin severe illness and sometimesdeath. Petrona Villasboa is one of those that has faced direct loss. Her son was accidenatlly sprayed by one of the machines that are often spraying Monsanto’s Roundup on the surrounding crops. Silvino Talavera died that same day – and it was a horrible death (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea…). That’s not all – Non GMOfarmersare being displaced, and those that stay run a calculated risk. Mothers living close to GM farmland are twice as likely to have a fetus with a birth deformity.

The industry doesn’t want this information out there.Monsantoprovides over 90 percent ofGMOsoy seeds and related herbicides to farmers worldwide (http://www.smdp.com/Articles-c-2011…).

Agent Orange was one of Monsanto’s first herbicides and the resulting effect to U.S soldiers and Vietnamese citizens was reprehensible(http://www.organicconsumers.org/mon…).

Scientist who push to hard to get a widespread scientific inquiry about the devastating effects of GE foods have had subtle and not-so-subtle pressure applied and been forced to back off their findings (http://www.responsibletechnology.or…).

Just as efforts are underway to assist these farmers in seeing the benefits of growing organic food as a means of survival and commerce, the end consumer must also make a change. Soy purchases must be viewed in a whole new light. The best way to protect your family from these potential harmful effects is to remove it from yourdietor stick to strictly organic soy and organicprocessed foods.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/032370_GM_soy_children.html#ixzz1avpKM8zI

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

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

	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

GMO Salmon Near FDA Approval—Public’s Input Not Wanted

This is a Call to Action! The only thing that can stop this travesty is a massive public outcry.

by Heidi Stevenson

3 July 2010

As the Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) nears approval for the first genetically engineered salmon, the public’s views on the issue are not wanted. These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will be the first animals approved for food, but the FDA is treating them like veterinary drugs, so the approval process is not open to the public and none of the documentation is available for inspection.

The modified fish, called AquAdvantage^® by their developer, AquaBounty Technologies, grow to market size very quickly. AquaBounty claims the fish can be ready for sale in 16-18 months instead of the usual 3 years for standard farmed salmon.

What We Know…

AquaBounty implanted two genes into the genetically engineered salmon. One is a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon of the Pacific Ocean, and the other is a gene from the pout fish that turns the growth hormone gene on. These keep salmon from turning their growth hormones off when it’s cold, so they continue to grow.

The FDA’s approval process requires submission of seven data sets. The first five have been approved. AquaBounty believes the last two sets are close to approval.

Even more revealing, though, is that the FDA has been discussing whether to require labeling of the GMO salmon—which sounds very much like they’ve already decided to approve AquaBounty’s salmon. As it now stands, the FDA does not require any other GMO food to be labeled, unless it’s significantly different from its natural counterpart or contains an allergen that the natural form doesn’t. There’s a belief that the public is “confused” by being informed.

AquaBounty’s CEO, Ronald L. Stotish, tries to create the image that their purpose is to benefit humanity. He has said that the GM fish would help grow food for the world with fewer resources. Of course, it ignores the massive amount of food the fish will need to grow so fast, the land required to provide the feed for the fish, transportation for getting feed to the fish, and the use of land that might grow vegetables or grass to graze animals for far less efficient food production in the fish. With so little basis in reality on this point, it’s difficult to believe any of AquaBounty’s statements about safety, health, or environmental standards.

…And What We Don’t Know

The method used to transfer genes is not being provided to the public. If a virus was used as a vector to transfer the genes, then the potential for inducing cancer in people who eat the salmon exists. The FDA does not seem to believe that we have the right to know what gene-transfer technique is used.

Gene Transfer?

Gut bacteria, present in everyone and necessary for life, are known to exchange genes. A study by the UK’s Food Standards Agency has shown that horizontal gene transfer can occur with a single serving of food. Is this possible with AquAdvantage salmon? We don’t know, and the FDA asks us to trust them that they’ll make the right decision.

Allergens?

Do the transferred genes produce new proteins that could be allergenic in some people? Again, we have only the word of the corporation that hopes to profit from the sale that a deadly allergen isn’t created by their product.

Nutritional Quality?

The nutritional quality and taste of the GM salmon is supposedly indistinguishable from natural Atlantic salmon. That’s what AquaBounty says—but the fact is that these are not the same as wild fish. They are less mature than the fish normally eaten now. Why should we believe their claims…especially since the FDA won’t show us any documentation to back them up?

Fish Suffer?

Do the fish suffer from abnormally rapid growth? Do they suffer from their altered anatomy? We don’t know. AquaBounty, of course, says they don’t. The FDA doesn’t believe we have the right to know.

There is one fact that we do know about these fish. They’ll be factory-farmed. Fish raised in such conditions generally suffer horribly in extremely crowded conditions eating toxic food, which is then transferred to us when eaten. For years, farmed salmon have been known to be dangerously infested with dioxins, PCBs, and toxaphene, which are known as carcinogens, and several other dangerous chemicals.

Fish Sterile & Unable to Escape?

AquaBounty claims that the fish are sterile females and that they cannot escape from the fish farms. There are two clear problems with these claims. The first is the assumption that the techniques used to make the fish sterile will last. Genetic alterations have been known to reverse, so we don’t know if these salmon would necessarily be unable to breed. The claim that they can’t escape from the farms because they aren’t located near the ocean is belied by the fact that AquaBounty does not intend to raise the fish themselves. Their plan is to sell eggs to fish farms. Are we to believe that they won’t sell to a farmer because he’s located by the ocean?

We do know that farmed fish are already escaping into the wild with devastating effects on the wild salmon. Should we believe the promises of AquaBounty that their fish cannot escape and, if they do, that they cannot breed?

Peter Melcher of the UK’s Soil Association, says

Once you have bombarded an animal with other genes, the DNA is unstable, and there is no guarantee these fish will remain sterile. It poses far too great a risk to wild salmon. A fish that grows so quickly is also likely to lose some of the nutritional benefits. There is no such thing as a free salmon lunch and we will pay the price.

What we do know about these fish is terrible. What we don’t know could be even worse. But the FDA doesn’t think we have the right to know, and AquaBounty is only telling us what they want us to hear.

Who Runs AquaBounty?

When trying to understand the nature of a corporation and its focus, it helps to look at who is on its board of directors. In AquaBounty’s case, it’s very revealing.

Richard J. Clothier is the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board and Chairman of the Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee. His career has put him at the head of agribusiness corporations, including Robinson plc, which makes packaging for supermarket products, and Spearhead International Ltd, which operates factory farms in several countries. Before that, he was a CEO with Dalgety plc, a now-defunct manufacturer of products sold by supermarkets. He retired recently as Group Chief Executive of PGI Group plc, an agribusiness firm involved in tea, flower, and produce production in Africa.

Other key figures with AquaBounty are former officers and executives of major multinational corporations, investment firms, medical device manufacturers, and pharmaceuticals. Stotish, the President and CEO, was previously an officer with a pharmaceutical firm involved in genetic manipulation. Elliot Entis, a board member, specializes in commercial and regulatory issues of biotech food introduction. Another board and audit committee member, Richard Huber, was a chairman and president of the giant health insurer, Aetna.

The collection of men at the helm of AquaBounty is remarkable for their connections with the worst sort of Agribusiness, Big Pharma, and multinational corporations. These are men who are practiced at the art of making money at any cost to the public and environment. It seems that they’ve found the perfect vehicle for their sort of expertise in AquaBounty.

The FDA’s “Public Meeting”

The FDA will probably hold a “public meeting” of an advisory committee in early fall, supposedly for obtaining public input. It’s a standard procedure before final approval of a drug. Limited information, consisting of material, picked by the FDA, that supports the product, is given to the public. It promises to be no more than a show. Gregory Jaffe, biotechnology project director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says that the public is not given adequate time to analyze the data provided.

Take Action!

Belying the true status of GM salmon in the FDA, a government official has stated anonymously, “It’s going to be a P. R. issue.” Let’s hope so!

Here’s what you can do:

Let’s stop Frankenfish!

(NaturalNews) The Obama administration’s Department of Agriculture (USDA) is attempting to downplay the risks of genetically modified alfalfa, a crop previously banned by numerous federal courts.

In 2007, a federal court rejected the Bush USDA’s approval of alfalfa plants genetically engineered for resistance to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup. The court ruled that the USDA had not properly considered the risks posed by the crop. These risks included the possibility that the genetically modified (GM) crops could swap genetic material with related species, thus contaminating neighboring fields or producing non-agricultural “super weeds.”

Monsanto continues to appeal the decision, even though the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against it twice. The case is now pending consideration by the Supreme Court.

Alfalfa is the first perennial crop to be genetically modified. Because it does not die after a year but can regenerate itself from even its roots, the risk of genetic contamination is higher than even that from GM annual crops, which have already been documented to spread beyond the fields they are planted in.

“Widespread [GM] contamination of organic alfalfa is inevitable if the Obama Administration successfully distorts science and ignores public opinion and allows Monsanto’s GM Roundup Ready alfalfa to be planted across the U.S.,” said Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association.

After Obama appointed former Monsanto executive Tom Vilsack to head the USDA, the agency released a new draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that continues to play down these risks.

Yet even the Monsanto-friendly EIS acknowledges that “acute toxicity … was observed” in mice that consumed GM alfalfa. It also admits that residues of Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide are toxic.

“Based on upper estimates of exposure… infants consuming fruit and all age groups consuming vegetables may be at risk of adverse effects associated with acute exposure to glyphosate residues,” the statement reads.

Since the introduction of Roundup Ready GM crops 13 years ago, herbicide use has increased by 383 million pounds.

Sources for this story include: www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummi….

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/028911_USDA_GM_crops.html#ixzz1auSCnGw1

If you are going to “do the Codex”, you better already be in Paris.  Next week, you will be in Xian, China and you will finish out April in Izmir, Turkey.  In May, it’s back around the world to Quebec City, Canada.

Yesterday in Paris, the Codex Committee on General Principals got underway for a week.  Next Monday, the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues begins its week of work in Xian.   Then the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Food finishes up the last week of April in Izmir.

And, on May 3, the Codex Committee on Food Labeling will gather in Quebec.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is attached to both the Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations and the World Health Organizations. Codex fulfills important functions when it comes to world food safety.

In Quebec, delegates from the 180 Codex countries are going to replay a familiar debate over whether or not genetically modified food should be so labeled.

Since Bill Clinton was President, the United States has favored a voluntary labeling strategy.  Labeling of GM food would be required only if important end characteristics required it, such as the potential for allergies or nutritional changes.

Mandatory labeling for GM foods is favored by the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.  The impasse has left Canada mediating between the camps and hosting a lot of meetings on the issue.

In Paris this week, the Codex Committee on General Principals is considering a revised Code of Ethics for International Trade in Foods, risk analysis policies, and a definition for what constitutes a “competent authority.”

The agenda for the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues in Xian beginning on April 19 is a long one.  The committee will set Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for certain foods and animal feeds including certain fruits and vegetables.

The Codex Committee on Contaminates in Foods on April 26 in Izmir will begin taking up a draft code for reducing ethyl carbonate in stone fruit distillates.  It is also scheduled to take up maximum levels for Melamine in food and feed.

But, it’s the Codex Committee on Food Labeling that is likely to get the most attention.   While GM food is becoming increasing common around the world, so too have requirements for consumer-friendly labeling.

That makes the U.S. goal of getting Codex to drop its work on GM food labeling all the more difficult.