Showing posts with label consumer protection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consumer protection. Show all posts

Saturday, 21 April 2018

Killing For Profit - at the European Parliament ! #LCHF Aseem Malhotra

Killing for Profit – Dr Aseem Malhotra discusses the dark world of Big Food and Big Pharma in Brussels

“We have a complete healthcare system failure and an epidemic of misinformed doctors and harmed patients,” – Dr Aseem Malhotra, 2018.
On 12 April, a combination of main medical doctors and lecturers spoke at the European Parliament in Brussels in a lecture entitled “Big Food & Big Pharma, Killing for Profit?” Among these audio system was Dr Malhotra, writer of The Pioppi Diet, a number one heart specialist and co-founder of Action Sugar, who spoke about the want for system reform in world healthcare, the biased funding of analysis, overmedication and the want to deal with the impression of sugar in our weight-reduction plan.
The video recording in full:




Saturday, 13 September 2014

German Supermarket Giants Demand Return to GMO-Free Fed Poultry

Written By: Henry Rowlands

Germany's top supermarkets, the powerhouses of Europe when it comes to retail, have delivered a blow to the biotech industry by forcing the German poultry industry to return to the use of non-GMO feed.


It was announced last Thursday that the German supermarkets, with a broad consensus, recently demanded from the German Poultry Association (ZDG) to stop using GMO feed for both egg and poultry meat production, starting from January 1st 2015. That is the date when the retailers want to receive GMO-free fed products again, meaning poultry suppliers will have to rush to get their feed supply chains free from GMO feed once more.

German language source: www.db.zs-intern.de

In February this year, the ZDG unilaterally declared that it was stopping using GM-free animal feed, following similar moves by other associations in England and Denmark. The reasons provided for the step after over a decade of GMO-free feeding were an alleged shortage of GMO-free soya, the risk of contamination, and the associated legal uncertainty.

However, following close consultation with Brazilian authorities, the German supermarkets have realized that the reasons given by ZDG do not stand up: There is clearly enough Brazilian GMO-free feed in the system to supply Europe's needs.

Global GMO Free Coalition Coordinator, Henry Rowlands, stated:

"The wool has been pulled over the eyes of retailers across Europe by the GMO industry over the past year. We welcome the news that they have started to fight back in the interest of their customers, who do not want to buy GM-fed eggs and meat."

Claire Robinson of Earth Open Source, a Global GMO Free Coalition partner organisation, said, "Retailers must ensure that their GMO-free feed requirements are communicated all the way along the supply chain to the Brazilian soymeal exporters."

Vandana Shiva of Navdanya (India), added: "This is an important step towards food democracy, the right to choose what you eat, and the right to know how it was produced."

"By taking a stand against the biotech and poultry industries, German supermarkets have proven that it's possible to respond to consumer demand for poultry that is fed non-GMO feed and in doing so, force significant changes to the supply chain despite pressure from Monsanto and industry trade associations," said Ronnie Cummins, international director of the Organic Consumers Association and its Mexico affiliate, Via Organica.

Sayer Ji of Greenmedinfo.com, commented:

"The use of glyphosate-contaminated GMO feed in poultry adds significant toxicological risks to the food chain both through bioaccumulation of agrochemicals and the shift in microbial communities within poultry towards higher pathogenicity. This promising decision by Germany's leading supermarkets should be applauded and used as an example of where the rest of the world should head for both a safer and more sustainable business model."

ZDG has reacted to the pressure from the supermarkets and consumers by proposing to the retailers to set up a working group to discuss options, but the truth is they do not look as if they have many. The argument of insufficient availability of non-GMO soya has been formally retracted by the ZDG.

The German retailers also indicated that they will demand a completely GMO-free feed supply chain in all animal feed sectors, including dairy, pork and beef as a next step that is to follow relatively soon.

In 2013 12 supermarkets from across Europe signed the Brussels Soy Declaration, stating that they want EU consumers and farmers to have a choice to eat and use non-GMO soy. This development came soon after the announcement by some UK supermarkets that they would abandon requirements that their poultry suppliers use non-GMO feed.

Original article can be read at:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/german-supermarket-giants-demand-return-gmo-free-fed-poultry

Saturday, 26 February 2011

Nocton mega-dairy from the UK withdraws plans for factory dairy farm

Great news from the UK! I don't understand why people in the US are still willing to put up with this!
Take action!

By Care 2

There is good news from the UK.  Thanks in no small part to the dedicated animal and environmental groups, along with many individuals, the mega dairy application for Nocton has been withdrawn.  The proposed dairy factory farm in Lincolnshire would have been the first such endeavor in the UK.

Originally, the proposal called for 8,000 cows, but due to strong objections, a plan was resubmitted for close to 4,000.  Modeled after U.S. factory farm methods, Nocton Dairies would have been a precedent-setting operation for England. 

The Ecologist reported "in a statement, the farmers behind the Nocton proposal, David Barnes and Peter Willis, said they still hoped to see large-scale, US-style, dairy farming in the UK and challenged others to 'stand up to' opponents of the system. Another farmer, David Alvis, has recently been reported to be looking to set up a 2,000-3,000 cow unit in Cambridgeshire."


In the end, it was the environmental impact of tens of thousands of tons of waste products produced by the cows each year that was the main concern about giving approval.  The huge amount of waste runoff would seep into ground water and pollute the area.  Animal welfare concerns won this battle by default.


PETA, WSPA and VIVA.com had active campaigns running to prevent Nocton Dairy from becoming a reality.  The WSPA ‘Not in my Cuppa’ campaign was quite creative in drawing the public's attention to the issue.  The video below is one such example.





Thanks to the many Care2 members who took the time to get involved by writing, emailing, signing petitions and calling North Kesteven District Council.  Your voices have been heard!

Related Stories:

Urgent: Public Comments Needed to Stop Factory Dairy Farm in UK
Is Antibiotic Use on Factory Farms Making Us Sick?
Ohio Dairy Farmer Escapes Cruelty Charges

Tuesday, 1 February 2011

US using Codex Alimentarius to force Europe to allow carcinogenic and neurogenic drug in animal feed

Safe limits are not for protecting consumers but for industry, so they can still continue with contaminating our food supply. No wonder so many people are turning towards vegetarianism.

By Gaia Health

Ractopamine causes cancer in humans, and misery to the point of death for animals. Yet, Codex Alimentarius is pushing for its worldwide use, and the United States is behind the push.

Ractopamine is a drug used to increase muscle mass in animals and known to cause cancer and neurological disorders in humans. Nearly every country in the world has banned its use, with the glaring exceptions of the US, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Thailand, and Brazil. But the US wants to sell its tainted meat and poisonous drugs outside the country, so they are pressing Codex Alimentarius to take a stand in favor of ractopamine, which trade agreements will force down the throats of the rest of the world.

Europe's principled stand against the drug—and, believe it or not, China's—will end. The entire world will be subjected to pseudo-science that finds no problems with ractopamine, so that Big Pharma and Agribusiness can continue to ratchet up the profits.


Ractopamine

As documented in Drug Banned in China Used to Fatten Animals in U.S., ractopamine is given to pigs, cows, and turkeys during their last weeks of life because it forces their metabolism to make less fat and more meat. It's sold as Paylean when meant for pigs, as Optiflexx for cattle, and Tomax for turkeys.

Ractopamine is considered too dangerous for human consumption—and there is no question that residue from racotopamine remains in the meat that's eaten by humans. It results in misery for the animals, causing hyperactivity and stress. Many die—but apparently not enough to make the stuff unprofitable.

Agribusiness' Problem


Because most countries have representatives in Codex Alimentarius, they didn't initially approve ractopamine. —Yes, it's hard to believe that Codex took the right stand. But, when enough pressure is brought to bear—at least officially and when the evidence is irrefutable—even Codex doesn't always side with Big Pharma and Agribusiness.— So, the US has been putting pressure on Codex, and of course, it's bearing results.

Codex Alimentarius is a joint venture of two United Nations agencies, the misnamed World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Its function is to set rules that will be used among nations with trade agreements. The rules are enforced through trade treaties.

Though officially considered advisory, in reality the "guidelines" it sets up are implemented with stronger controls than most laws. Ultimately, Codex serves its corporate masters, but often, those masters work through governmental agencies, as in the case of ractopamine.

The US lobbied Codex for approval of ractopamine. Thew weren't successful at initial meetings, but they managed to get Codex to hold off on an opinion until European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reviewed scientific information. EFSA found that the reports it was given were inadequate, so went to the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) for its opinion. EMEA supported the reevaluation to allow a Codex standard for the maximum residue limits (MRL).

So, Codex managed to get cover to set a world-wide standard to allow ractopamine use in animal feed. They met in 2009 with the intention of setting the MRL—but China forestalled them by submitting new evidence that demonstrated ractopamine residue in feed animal muscles, liver, and kidneys, and high residue levels in lungs. So, Codex was forced to table the adoption of MRL standards.

Now, though, Codex is scheduled to meet again on the issue. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is pushing for ractopamine MRL standards, will be attending a meeting in Brussels, 10-11 February 2011, with a small group of counties. One wonders what sort of arm twisting will happen there. The USDA will be pushing hard for a solution—and, of course, the only solution they'd consider acceptable is the one that sets an MRL for ractopamine. After all, there's money to be made on the suffering of animals and the slow-developing cancers and neurological disorders that now plague us.

The Purpose of Codex Alimentarius

Codex Alimentarius' website states:

The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade...

However, the health of consumers and ensuring fair trade are in conflict. In practice, the health of consumers takes a backseat to the moneyed interests of multinational corporations and "fair trade" is interpreted according to their desires. That leaves the people and the true representatives of their needs, small businesses, without protection.

Codex Alimentarius acts for the benefit of some of the most rapacious industries on earth. Ractopamine is a banned drug. It seriously harms health, offers no benefit to humans, and makes the lives of animals miserable. Yet, Codex isn't interested in banning it, but only in finding a maximum residue limit that doesn't cause too much obvious harm, so that multinational corporations can profit.

Obviously, Codex Alimentarius plays an insidious role in the oppression of people around the world.

Friday, 7 January 2011

GE salmon

By The Center for Food Safety

Dissatisfied with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current review of the first-ever proposed commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) salmon, today California State Assemblymember Jared Huffman introduced an Assembly Bill (AB 88) which would require that all GE salmon sold in California contain clear and prominent labeling. The Center for Food Safety (CFS), a co-sponsor of the bill, applauds Assemblymember Huffman for protecting the public’s right to know how their food is produced by drafting this important piece of food safety legislation.

“The federal agency charged with protecting our food supply is failing us yet again,” said Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety. “Consumers have the right to know that the food they consume and feed their families is safe. Until FDA does an adequate environmental and human health review of genetically engineered salmon, it is up to individual states to protect consumers and their families. The Assemblymember’s proposed bill will protect Californians through labeling, which restores consumer confidence and choice.”

Public opinion clearly and consistently calls for food labeling. Recent polls indicate that 95% of the public want labeling of genetically-modified foods, and that nearly 50% of the public would not eat seafood that has been genetically engineered.

The Center for Food Safety recently called on the FDA to recognize the immense public outcry for mandatory labeling of untested, unapproved transgenic salmon. CFS led a broad coalition of consumer, environmental, religious and animal welfare groups, along with commercial and recreational fisheries associations and food retailers, grocers and chefs in demanding the FDA deny approval of the long-shelved AquaBounty transgenic salmon and require mandatory labeling of the fish is approved despite intense opposition. If approved the transgenic salmon would be the first genetically engineered animal intended for human consumption.

“Consumers sent a clear message to FDA that they do not want to eat genetically engineered salmon and should FDA decide to move forward despite overwhelming opposition it must be labeled,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety. November 22nd marked the end of a two month public comment period on the labeling of GE salmon. Nearly 400,000 public comments have been sent to FDA, demanding the agency reject this application and require mandatory labeling of this transgenic salmon should it decide to approve it.

Link to the article.

Related post:


Thursday, 30 December 2010

7 foods that experts won't eat

1. Canned tomatoes
The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Unfortunately, acidity (a prominent characteristic of tomatoes) causes BPA to leach into your food. Studies show that the BPA in most people’s body exceeds the amount that suppresses sperm production or causes chromosomal damage to the eggs of animals. “You can get 50 mcg of BPA per liter out of a tomato can, and that’s a level that is going to impact people, particularly the young,” says vom Saal. “I won’t go near canned tomatoes.” Fredrick vom Saal, PhD, endocrinologist

2. Corn - fed beef
Cattle evolved to eat grass, not grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. More money for cattle farmers (and lower prices at the grocery store) means a lot less nutrition for us. A recent comprehensive study conducted by the USDA and researchers from Clemson University found that compared with corn-fed beef, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium; lower in inflammatory omega-6s; and lower in saturated fats that have been linked to heart disease. “We need to respect the fact that cows are herbivores, and that does not mean feeding them corn and chicken manure,” says Salatin. Joel Salatin, expert on sustainable farming

3. Microwave popcorn
Chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in the lining of the bag, are part of a class of compounds that may be linked to infertility in humans, according to a recent study from UCLA. In animal testing, the chemicals cause liver, testicular, and pancreatic cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize—and migrate into your popcorn. “They stay in your body for years and accumulate there,” says Naidenko, which is why researchers worry that levels in humans could approach the amounts causing cancers in laboratory animals. DuPont and other manufacturers have promised to phase out PFOA by 2015 under a voluntary EPA plan, but millions of bags of popcorn will be sold between now and then. Olga Naidenko, PhD, Environmental Working Group

4. Non-organic potatoes
Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes—the nation’s most popular vegetable—they’re treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they’re dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting. “Try this experiment: Buy a conventional potato in a store, and try to get it to sprout. It won’t,” says Moyer, who is also farm director of the Rodale Institute (also owned by Rodale Inc., the publisher of Prevention). “I’ve talked with potato growers who say point-blank they would never eat the potatoes they sell. They have separate plots where they grow potatoes for themselves without all the chemicals.” Jeffrey Moyer, National Organic Standards

5. Farmed salmon
Nature didn’t intend for salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result, farmed salmon is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT. According to Carpenter, the most contaminated fish come from Northern Europe, which can be found on American menus. “You can only safely eat one of these salmon dinners every 5 months without increasing your risk of cancer,” says Carpenter, whose 2004 fish contamination study got broad media attention. “It’s that bad.” Preliminary science has also linked DDT to diabetes and obesity, but some nutritionists believe the benefits of omega-3s outweigh the risks. There is also concern about the high level of antibiotics and pesticides used to treat these fish. When you eat farmed salmon, you get dosed with the same drugs and chemicals. David Carpenter MD

6. Milk produced with artificial hormones
Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk. In people, high levels of IGF-1 may contribute to breast, prostate, and colon cancers. “When the government approved rBGH, it was thought that IGF-1 from milk would be broken down in the human digestive tract,” says North. As it turns out, the casein in milk protects most of it, according to several independent studies. “There’s not 100% proof that this is increasing cancer in humans,” admits North. “However, it’s banned in most industrialized countries.” Nick North Campaign for Safe Food

7. Conventional apples
If fall fruits held a “most doused in pesticides contest,” apples would win. Why? They are individually grafted (descended from a single tree) so that each variety maintains its distinctive flavor. As such, apples don’t develop resistance to pests and are sprayed frequently. The industry maintains that these residues are not harmful. But Kastel counters that it’s just common sense to minimize exposure by avoiding the most doused produce, like apples. “Farm workers have higher rates of many cancers,” he says. And increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden of pesticides (from all sources) with Parkinson’s disease. Mark Kastel, Cornucopia Institute

On how to avoid these foods and for the full article, please click here.

Sunday, 14 November 2010

UK supermarkets urged to label food that isn't GM

Excerpts from the article published on gmwatch.org:

  • 70% of the meat and dairy you buy in supermarkets are coming from animals that are fed GM feed.
  • The world's second biggest chain, Carrefour launches a new system to mark out such products.  It's gonna be a green stamp saying "Nourri sans OGM" to label animal products such as meat and dairy. 
  • 96% of consumers want honest labeling
  • 63% of consumers would not buy animals products that are coming from GM fed animals.
  • Scientists have found fragments of GM DNA from GM animal feed in products like milk.
  • An enzyme, lactic dehydrogenase, was found at significantly raised levels in the heart, muscle, and kidneys of kids fed GM RR soya. This enzyme leaks from damaged cells and can indicate inflammatory or other cellular injury.
  • Read Peter Melchett's letter (Soil Association) to Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda, Morrisons, Waitrose and M&S.
This article is proof that here in Europe we have already had GM for years! God knows how long. In the US, organizations who want GM out of the food supply, always mention the EU as a good example of being GM free. This is sadly not true. At the moment we buy mostly organic, as much as possible, but we will keep on eye on this new labeling system in Carrefour, I want to see it happening.

We need proper labeling on all food products! From July this year, GM maize/corn can be legally imported into the EU for consumption, for animal feed and for processing. EU officials say it is safe. If it is safe, I doubt that they will label it. If one GM product is announced to be safe, what will stop the rest from entering the EU? Nothing..

I do hope that Carrefour's approach to GM is genuine and I do hope that other supermarket chains will follow suit!