EU to back sale of meat and milk from cloned animal offspring

(DailyMail) The sale of meat and milk from the offspring of cloned farm animals is set to be backed by EU Commissioners despite mass consumer opposition.



A huge majority of the public is against clone animal farming, according to studies in Britain and across Europe.



Concerns surround the ethics of the process, the welfare of the animals and a lack of research on food safety. However, a leaked report to be discussed by the EU’s College of Commissioners today comes out in favour of food from the offspring of clones.



Alarmingly, it appears this food would not have to be labelled, leaving families completely in the dark about what they are putting in their mouths.



Specifically, the report proposes a temporary five-year ban on the sale of meat and milk from clones, but there would be no ban on food from their offspring.



If this policy is adopted, European farms could be populated by cloned supersize animals used as breeding stock for cows, pigs and sheep that are reared for food.



Clones themselves can suffer a range of painful conditions, including malformed organs and gigantism. Many die in the womb or soon after birth.



But the Commission and the Government take the view that meat and milk from the offspring of a clone is effectively normal and therefore no ban or labelling is required.



The Daily Mail revealed in the summer that more than 100 cattle – pedigree Holstein milking cows – which are the offspring of clones are being raised on British farms.



We also revealed how meat from two clone-offspring bulls and one veal calf had been sold in butcher shops in Scotland, North-East England, London and Belgium.



The Food Standards Agency has made clear it believes it is illegal to sell meat and milk from these sources without first getting its approval.



Food and farming minister Caroline Spelman supports the move to force meat and milk from clone offspring into supermarkets.



The idea that the European Commission and the Government are putting the interest of high-tech clone farmers over the concerns of consumers and animal welfare has angered critics.



The attitude has echoes of the BSE crisis and the way biotech firms tried to force GM food into the national diet.



A 2008 EU study found consumers across Europe are unhappy at this new era of ‘Frankenstein food’ farming.



Eighty-seven per cent of Britons said too little is known about the long-term health and safety effects of eating food from these animals.



A separate study for the FSA found that the more consumers learned about cloning, the greater were the objections. The vast majority said food derived from these animals should be labelled.



Even if the Commissioners and the Government back the sale of food from clone offspring, this is not final. MEPs and other, more sceptical, nations could try to block the policy.

Source

Study Proves Aspartame Causes Lung And Liver Cancer

(Rense) A new study by Dr. Morando Soffritti at the Ramazzini Institute, demonstrated that aspartame administered in feed to Swiss mice induces significant dose-related increases of hepatocellular carcinomas and of alveolar/bronchiolar carcinoma in males. Dosages were 32,000, 8,000, 2000 or zero ppm, beginning on day 12 of gestation and lasting until death. See this new study at http://www.mpwhi.com/soffritti_2010_20896_fta.pdf



While the new study is breaking, the history of aspartame being a carcinogen has always been known. Aspartame was known to cause cancer from the beginning. On August 1, 1985 FDA toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, told Congress that at least one of Searle's studies "has established beyond ANY REASONABLE DOUBT that aspartame is capable of inducing brain tumors in experimental animals and that this predisposition of it is of extremely high significance. ... In view of these indications that the cancer causing potential of aspartame is a matter that had been established WAY BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, one can ask: What is the reason for the apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act?"



The Delaney Amendment makes it illegal to allow ANY residue of cancer causing chemicals in foods. Dr Gross concluded by asking, "Given the cancer causing potential of aspartame how would the FDA justify its position that it views a certain amount of aspartame as constituting an allowable daily intake or 'safe' level of it? Is that position in effect not equivalent to setting a 'tolerance' for this food additive and thus a violation of that law? And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public?" Congressional Record SID835:131 (8/1/85)



FDA then revoked the petition for aspartame approval because it could not be proven safe and causes brain tumors. http://www.wnho.net/fda_petition1.doc The FDA audit known as the Bressler Report details how Searle excised brain tumors from rats, put them back in the study, and when they died resurrected them on paper. http://www.rense.com/general88/hid.htmIt (Note adenocarcinoma in this report) Searle filtered out what they didn't want the FDA to see.



Aspartame was never proven safe but was marketed through the political chicanery of Donald Rumsfeld. Dr. Jacqueline Verrett, another on site FDA toxicologist reported to Congress that all studies on aspartame should be thrown out, that they were built on a foundation of sand. Attorney Jim Turner in "Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World" explains how it happened: http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages/rumsfeld.html Dr. Jere Goyan, FDA Commissioner at the time would have signed the revoking petition into law. and that would have closed the book on this deadly chemical toxin. Goyan was fired at 3:00 AM the day after President Reagan took office. Reagam then appointed Arthur Hull Hayes as Commissioner to over-rule the Board of Inquiry.



Dr. Gross then asked for an indictment of the G. D. Searle company: http://www.wnho.net/letter_2.pdf but the defense team hired both US prosecutors. Dr. John Olney with Attorney James Turner tried to prevent approval and had Searle do studies in his laboratory so he could oversee them, because of the fraud discussed in the Bressler Report. These studies showed brain damage but Searle never gave that damning data to the FDA.



In 2005 the Cancer Research Center at the European Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences in Bologna, Italy reported that a 3-year study evaluating the potential carcinogenic effects of aspartame demonstrated that it "induces an increase in lymphomas and leukemias in female rats."



At that time neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D. announced: "The new study released in the European Journal of oncology by Morando Soffritti and co-workers should terrify mothers and all those consuming aspartame sweetened products. This was a carefully done study which clearly demonstrated a statistically significant increase in several types of lymphomas and leukemias in rats. Both of these malignancies have increased significantly in this country since the widespread use of aspartame.



"This study confirmed the previous study by Dr. Trocho and co-workers, which also found the formaldehyde breakdown product of aspartame to be damaging to cellular DNA and that this damage was accumulative. The type of damage was a duplicate of that associated with cancers. Along with this most recent study, this means that drinking a single diet cola sweetened with aspartame every day could increase one's risk of developing a lymphoma or leukemia.



"They also found an increased incidence of malignant brain tumors, even though it was not statistically significant. This does not mean there is no association to brain tumors, since only the animals exposed to aspartame developed the tumors. With children and pregnant women drinking the largest amount of diet colas, this puts their children at the greatest risk of developing one of these horrible diseases. Their study found that even low doses of aspartame could cause these malignancies; yet, the higher the dose, the more cancers that were seen.



"Since aspartame can increase obesity and may even cause the metabolic syndrome that affects 48 million Americans, there is no reason to ever consume this product. At the least it should be immediately banned from all schools." Dr. Russell Blaylock is author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, and other books, http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/



A second study by Dr. Morando Soffritti in 2007 proved that low dosage of aspartame causes cancer.



Dr. Blaylock reviewed this study too, and said: "My review of the first Ramazzini Study concluded that the study was one of the best designed, comprehensive and conclusive studies done to date on the multipotent carcinogenic potential of aspartame. This second study is even more conclusive, in that it shows a dose-dependent statistically significant increase in lymphomas/leukemia in both male and female rats exposed to aspartame. These two cancers are the fastest growing cancers in people under age 30.



"Also, of major concern is their finding of statistically significant increases in breast cancer in animals exposed to aspartame. With newer studies clearly indicating that toxic exposures during fetal development can dramatically increase the cancer risk of the offspring, this study takes on a very important meaning to all pregnant women consuming aspartame products. Likewise, small children are at considerable risk of the later development of these highly fatal cancers.



"It should be appreciated that the doses used in these studies fall within the range of doses seen in everyday users of aspartame. This study, along with the first study, should convince any reasonable scientific mind, as well as the public at large, that this product should be removed from the market."



At New York's Mt Sinai School of Medicine DR. MORANDO SOFFRITTI was honored in April, 2007 with the Irving J Selikoff Award for Outstanding contributions to the identification of environmental and industrial carcinogens, and his promotion of independent scientific research.



The prestigious Selikoff Award is only granted for ground-breaking cancer research. It was created in 1993 by the Collegium Ramazzini, an academy of 180 internationally renowned experts in occupational and environmental health from over 30 nations. It was awarded only twice before it was presented to Dr. Soffritti.



His research was conducted for 36 months using 1,800 rats. It forced the conclusion that aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen. Cancers aspartame produced included leukemia, lymphoma, kidney, and cranial peripheral nerves among others. Only the rats fed aspartame got malignant brain tumors. This prodigious work was peer reviewed by 7 world experts.



This work confirms studies presented to the FDA 25 years ago documenting a catalogue of brain, uterine, ovarian, testicular, mammary, pancreatic and thyroid tumors. It was also known from the beginning that aspartame causes liver damage. http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_and_liver_damage.htm Now Dr. Soffritti's studies prove it.



Attorney James Turner, a former Nader Raider, the author of the Chemical Feast, stated today: "Once again Dr. Soffritti shows aspartame causes cancer in animals. Only a fool would use NutraSweet in light of this mounting evidence. The indictment of NutraSweet long ago passed the threshold demanding a full review by the FDA, but don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. "



Ralph Walton, M.D., psychiatrist did a study on aspartame some years ago. The reactions were so severe that the study was stopped. The Administrator of the hospital took part in it and lost his vision in one eye. Dr. Walton researched for 60 Minutes who was funding aspartame studies. Bottom line, nearly 100% of independent studies which were not controlled or paid for by industry showed the problems aspartame causes.



Dr. Walton said, "Dr. Soffritti's latest study, demonstrating that aspartame induces cancers of the liver and lung in mice, adds significantly to the growing body of evidence that aspartame is a highly toxic, carcinogenic agent. I agree wholeheartedly with his conclusion that a re-evaluation of the current regulations on aspartame is urgent, and would urge both the FDA and EFSA to seriously evaluate this and similar independently funded research, and rescind the approval which was based on flawed industry sponsored research."



Pauline Harding, M.D. of the Chicago Aspartame Detoxification Center said: "Dr. Morando Soffritti and his colleagues have demonstrated in animal studies that the artificial sweetener aspartame can induce malignancies of the liver, lungs, skin and lymph nodes. Breakdown products of aspartame have previously been demonstrated to induce headaches, blindness, and seizures. A wide range of children's' foods and beverages from bread and cereal to candy and soft drinks contain this toxin. Aspartame should not be allowed in our food or drugs and should be banned the world over."



Former FDA investigator Arthur Evangelista reports: "While previously working with FDA Investigations Branch, I inadvertently began uncovering various patterns of corruption and cover up. It was these same corrupted patterns which allowed Aspartame's approval, as well as continued approval for other toxic substances masquerading as healthy or beneficial. The revolving door of corporate and political infiltration has essentially rendered the Food & Drug Administration useless, misused (as an agency), and malfeasant, while the FDA exhibits a serious moral vacuum within the agency's management.



"In our current situation, the FDA obviously and routinely (unconstitutionally and unlawfully) silences, subdues, misinforms, and suppresses most of the useful information about natural health, vitamins, or herbs, not to mention silencing their own scientists. This corruption is primarily due to the FDA's (and governments) alliance with the Petro-Pharmaceutical and Chem-Agricultural cartels, along with continuing directives from corrupted Administrations with a devious agenda, of which all regulatory or enforcement agencies will participate and public health is NOT part of this agenda. ~ Arthur Evangelista, PhD, former FDA Investigator



Attorney James Turner warns that the so called Food Safety Bill, S510, must be stopped as it will give the FDA even greater power. FDA refuses to even answer Citizens Petitions which law says must be answered in 180 days. My petition for ban of aspartame has been ignored since 2002. The imminent health hazard amendment was sent in 2007 and the law requires it be answered in a week or ten days. FDA gets over half their funds from the industry they regulate and you can't serve two masters. So we, the American public, have lost protection from dangerous food and drugs. Nearly three decades ago Dr. H. J. Roberts told the FDA for years aspartame is an imminent health hazard. His inquiries about FDA allowing free methyl alcohol have never been answered. Were FDA on the side of public safety, aspartame would have been banned long ago.



Jim Turner also said of this bill, "It will enhance FDA's authority so that the agency will be more able to attack small, organic and local food growers and producers while doing noting about unsafe additives like aspartame, GMOs, factory farming with their growth enhancing disease spreading antibiotic drugs and hormones, or food irradiation. It does nothing to allow food sellers to identify their products as drug, GMOS or irradiation free. In short it puts great pressure on the only things helping to make a safer, healthier cleaner, environmentally sound food supply while reinforcing and bolstering the industrial food and farming practices that run up the cost to of food per nutrient and lower it quality. It is a bad bill it must be stopped."



Will FDA ever rescind the approval after 30 years of complaints and with full knowledge from the beginning that aspartame is a deadly carcinogen? What is their excuse now? It's time for governments worldwide to revoke their approvals of this deadly addictive, excitoneurotoxic, genetically engineered drug and adjuvant, especially since other nations base their approvals on the FDA which possessed full knowledge aspartame is poison.



Consider Oncogene studies. This has to do with a gene that causes the transformation of normal cells into cancerous tumor cells. The International Institute of Anticancer Research in Hungary did a study on the effect of aspartame administration on Oncogene and Suppressor Gene Expressions in 2006. Their abstract is as follows:



INCLUDEPICTURE "http://iv.iiarjournals.org/content/21/1/local/img/journal_logo.gif" \*MERGEFORMATINET



"Background: Aspartame (L-phenylalanine N-L- -aspartyl-1-methyl ester) is an artificial sweetener with widespread applications. Previously published results have shown that among rats receiving aspartame a significant increase of lymphoreticular neoplasms, brain tumours and transitional cell tumours occurred. The aim of our short-term experiment was to investigate the biological effect of aspartame consumption by determining the expressions of key oncogenes and a tumour suppressor gene. Materials and Methods: After one week per os administration of various doses of aspartame to CBA/CA female mice, p53, c-myc, Ha-ras gene expression alterations were determined in individual organs. Results: The results showed an increase in gene expressions concerning all the investigated genes especially in organs with a high proliferation rate: lymphoreticular organs, bone-marrow and kidney. Conclusion: Aspartame has a biological effect even at the recommended daily maximum dose. "



Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., is Professor emeritus of Environmental & Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; and author of over 200 scientific articles and 15 books on cancer. Dr. Epstein wrote for an overdue ban on aspartame, that it violates Delaney.



Twelve toxicologists petitioned the FDA to ban aspartame: http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_letter_to_fda.pdf There have been efforts to ban aspartame from states, first in New Mexico twice, through the efforts of Stephen Fox, Mission Possible New Mexico, and Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino. Also in Hawaii by Jade Bruhjell, Mission Possible Hawaii. Flacks and front groups rush in to defend the aspartame manufacturers. In the Philippines, efforts to ban were made by Numero Lim, Counselor. Also, efforts have been made in New Zealand and in the UK.



World expert on aspartame H. J. Roberts, M.D., published a 1,000 page medical text on the aspartame plague, "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic", (www.sunsentpress.com) He discusses carcinogenic mechanisms such as the diketopiperazine derivative of aspartame which is a tumor-causing chemical. He states the formaldehyde released from the breakdown of methyl alcohol is a known carcinogen. Indeed, California's Proposition 65 states that no product with methanol or formaldehyde may come into that state without a cancer warning. So this poison is illegal in California. Since it's adulterated it's illegally on the market to begin with as it is against the law to ship an adulterated product for sale, violating Interstate Commerce Laws.



So why are pharmaceutical/chemical manufacturers permitted to exist regardless of how many laws they break? Because the FDA makes its living off drug companies who really call the shots at the Fatal Drugs Allowed office. In this case aspartame is in violation of adulteration laws, Interstate Commerce laws and the Delaney Amendment. Ajinomoto recently changed the name of aspartame to AminoSweet to duck the curse informed public outcry has brought on their poison. Other names are NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, E951, Canderel and Benevia, for starters.



This deceit can cause aspartame-sensitized victims to have severe reactions such as the one an unwarned young woman had in the movie Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World. She became a Code Blue and resuscitated. Ajinomoto is now trying for approval of another aspartame product,, Advantame. Further a petition by industry is asking that aspartame not be labeled in dairy products and yogurt. http://www.rense.com/general92/foia.htm



The public also must be alerted not to use Splenda, a chlorocarbon poison, or Acesulfame potassium that caused cancer and leukemia in original studies. Just Like Sugar is a safe sweetener, HYPERLINK "http://www.justlikesugarinc.com" www.justlikesugarinc.com James Bowen, M.D. says if you go from aspartame to Splenda you will maintain the reactions from aspartame and pick up those from Splenda. Dr. Bowen who has ALS from aspartame told the FDA over 20 years ago that aspartame is mass poisoning of the American public and more than 70+ countries (today over 100).



Source

Why McDonald's Happy Meal hamburgers won't decompose - the real story behind the story

(NaturalNews) It's always entertaining when the mainstream media "discovers" something they think is new even though the natural health community has been talking about for years. The New York Times, for example, recently ran a story entitled When Drugs Cause Problems They Are Supposed to Prevent http://www.nytimes.com/. We've been covering the same topic for years, reporting on how chemotherapy causes cancer, osteoporosis drugs cause bone fractures and antidepressant drugs cause suicidal behavior.



The latest "new" discovery by the mainstream media is that McDonald's Happy Mealhamburgers and fries won't decompose, even if you leave them out for six months. This story has been picked up by CNN, the Washington Post and many other MSM outlets which appear startled that junk food from fast food chains won't decompose.



The funny thing about this is that the natural health industry already covered this topic years ago. Remember Len Foley's Bionic Burger video? It was posted in 2007 and eventually racked up a whopping 2 million views on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch And this video shows a guy who bought his McDonald's hamburgers in 1989 -- burgers that still haven't decomposed in over two decades!



Now, he has an entire museum of non-decomposed burgers in his basement.



Did the mainstream media pick up on this story? Nope. Not a word. The story was completely ignored. It was only in 2010 when an artist posted a story about a non-decomposing McDonald's hamburger from six months ago that the news networks ran with the story.



Check out the video link above and you'll see an entire museum of Big Macs and hamburgers spanning the years -- none of which have decomposed.



This is especially interesting because the more recent "Happy Meal Project" which only tracks a burger for six months has drawn quite a lot of criticism from a few critics who say the burgers will decompose if you give them enough time. They obviously don't know about the mummified burger museum going all the way back to 1989. This stuff never seems to decompose!



Why don't McDonald's hamburgers decompose?

So why don't fast food burgers and fries decompose in the first place? The knee-jerk answer is often thought to be, "Well they must be made with so many chemicals that even mold won't eat them." While that's part of the answer, it's not the whole story.



The truth is many processed foods don't decompose and won't be eaten by molds, insects or even rodents. Try leaving a tub of margarine outside in your yard and see if anything bothers to eat it. You'll find that the margarine stays seems immortal, too!



Potato chips can last for decades. Frozen pizzas are remarkably resistant to decomposition. And you know those processed Christmas sausages and meats sold around the holiday season? You can keep them for years and they'll never rot.



With meats, the primary reason why they don't decompose is their high sodium content. Salt is a great preservative, as early humans have known for thousands of years. McDonald'smeat patties are absolutely loaded with sodium -- so much so that they qualify as "preserved" meat, not even counting the chemicals you might find in the meat.



To me, there's not much mystery about the meat not decomposing. The real question in my mind is why don't the buns mold? That's the really scary part, since healthy bread begins to mold within days. What could possibly be in McDonald's hamburger buns that would ward off microscopic life for more than two decades?



As it turns out, unless you're a chemist you probably can't even read the ingredients list out loud. Here's what McDonald's own website says you'll find in their buns:



Enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid, enzymes), water, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, yeast,soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated soybean oil, contains 2% or less of the following: salt, calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate, wheat gluten, ammonium sulfate, ammonium chloride, dough conditioners (sodium stearoyl lactylate, datem, ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide, mono- and diglycerides, ethoxylated monoglycerides, monocalcium phosphate, enzymes, guar gum, calcium peroxide, soy flour), calcium propionate and sodium propionate (preservatives), soy lecithin.



Great stuff, huh? You gotta especially love the HFCS (diabetes, anyone?), partially-hydrogenated soybean oil (anybody want heart disease?) and the long list of chemicals such as ammonium sulfate and sodium proprionate. Yum. I'm drooling just thinking about it.



Now here's the truly shocking part about all this: In my estimation, the reason nothing will eat a McDonald's hamburger bun (except a human) is because it's not food!



No normal animal will perceive a McDonald's hamburger bun as food, and as it turns out, neither will bacteria or fungi. To their senses, it's just not edible stuff. That's why these bionic burger buns just won't decompose.



Which brings me to my final point about this whole laughable distraction: There is only one species on planet Earth that's stupid enough to think a McDonald's hamburger is food. This species is suffering from skyrocketing rates of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, dementia and obesity. This species claims to be the most intelligent species on the planet, and yet it behaves in such a moronic way that it feeds its own children poisonous chemicals and such atrocious non-foods that even fungi won't eat it (and fungi will eat cow manure, just FYI).



Care to guess which species I'm talking about?



That's the real story here. It's not that McDonald's hamburgers won't decompose; it's thatpeople are stupid enough to eat them. But you won't find CNN reporting that story any time soon.

Source

Ben & Jerry's dropping 'All Natural' label

(NaturalNews) Specialty ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's has decided to drop the "All Natural" label from its entire line of ice cream products after pressure from consumer groups and the public about the company's use of unnatural ingredients. Ben & Jerry's, which is now owned by Unilever, uses ingredients like corn syrup and maltodextrin that together constitute at least 90 percent of the product, a fact that many say renders it nearly "All Unnatural".



The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has been calling out Ben & Jerry's for what it says is deceptive labeling since 2002, citing the fact that ingredients like alkalized cocoa and partially hydrogenated soybean oil -- two ingredients found in many varieties of Ben & Jerry's ice cream -- are not natural.



"[T]hese ingredients come from the factory, not the farm," Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of CSPI, is cited as saying in an earlier NaturalNews.com report.

http://www.naturalnews.com/029520_nat...



In response, Unilever finally caved and did the right thing by dropping the label from its products. However a recent company press release indicates that Unilever still believes its Ben & Jerry's products are natural, and that those who disagree are being unreasonable.



"Ben & Jerry's has based its use of the term "all natural" on guidelines issued by the FDA, which reflect how reasonable consumers would understand that term," the release states.



So according to Ben & Jerry's, oil extracted from genetically-modified soybeans using chemical hexane, and that has been artificially processed into a solid-state trans-fat, is an ingredient that reasonable consumers -- and the FDA -- consider natural.



Any reasonable scientist, however, is sure to disagree, as is anyone else with the least bit of common sense

Source

New FDA regulations to destroy small organic farms

(NaturalNews) A proposed law to bring farms more directly under FDA supervision could be the death of small organic farms, natural food advocates have warned.



"How do we trust that the FDA is going to know about things that the San Francisco Bay Area has been very progressive on -- the field to fork, fresh, grow local, buy local -- all of that?" said Rep. Sam Farr. "The organic people are feeling that the regulations the FDA may promulgate will be so safety oriented, it'll put them out of business."







Spurred by recent outbreaks of foodborne illness across the country, Congress has moved to give the FDA direct control over the production, storage, transport, inspection and recall of food products. A bill to that effect has already passed the House of Representatives, while another version is currently before the Senate.



Yet small farmers object that even the more lenient Senate version would be an undue burden on their operations. They are backed up by a recent study from the University of California-Davis, which concluded that new food safety rules consistently impose higher per-acre costs on small farmers.



The farmers also argue that food contamination has not come from diverse, small-scale farms, but from big monoculture fields, from animal agriculture and from newer products such as pre-bagged vegetables, in which crops from a variety of farms are mixed, bagged and shipped over long distances.



"[The legislation] does not take on the industrial animal industry and the abuses going on," said California organic farmer Tom Willey. "The really dangerous organisms we're dealing with out here, and trying to protect our produce and other foodstuffs from, are coming out the rear end of domestic animals."



The first food poisoning outbreak in what would originally become a nationwide problem has been attributed to a strain of E. coli that first appeared in hamburger meat in the 1980s, and had spread to spinach by 2006.



Sources for this story include: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.....

Source

McDonald’s Happy Meal resists decomposition for six months

Vladimir Lenin, King Tut and the McDonald's Happy Meal: What do they all have in common? A shocking resistance to Mother Nature's cycle of decomposition and biodegradability, apparently.



That's the disturbing point brought home by the latest project of New York City-based artist and photographer Sally Davies, who bought a McDonald's Happy Meal back in April and left it out in her kitchen to see how well it would hold up over time.





The results? "The only change that I can see is that it has become hard as a rock," Davies told the U.K. Daily Mail.



She proceeded to photograph the Happy Meal each week and posted the pictures to Flickr to record the results of her experiment. Now, just over six months later, the Happy Meal has yet to even grow mold. She told the Daily Mail that "the food is plastic to the touch and has an acrylic sheen to it."



Davies -- whose art has been featured in numerous films and television shows and is collected by several celebrities -- told The Upshot that she initiated the project to prove a friend wrong. He believed that any burger would mold or rot within two or three days of being left on a counter. Thus began what's become known as "The Happy Meal Art Project."



"I told my friend about a schoolteacher who's kept a McDonald's burger for 12 years that hasn't changed at all, and he didn't believe me when I told him about it," Davies told us. "He thought I was crazy and said I shouldn't believe everything that I read, so I decided to try it myself."



Some observers of the photo series have noted that the burger's bun appears at different angles, and therefore aired suspicions that the Happy Meal may not in fact be as "untouched" as the project's groundrules stipulate. Davies says there's a simple explanation for the mobile-bun effect. "The meal is on a plate in my apartment on a shelf," she says, "and when I take it down to shoot it, the food slides around. It's hard as rock on a glass plate, so sure, the food is moving."



Davies' friend was the person who should have done the additional research. Wellness and nutrition educator Karen Hanrahan has indeed kept a McDonald's hamburger since 1996 to show clients and students how resistant fast food can be to decomposition.



As for Davies, she said that she might just keep her burger and fries hanging around for a while as well.



"It's sitting on a bookshelf right now, so it's not really taking up any space, so why not?" she said. It ceased giving off any sort of odor after 24 hours, she said, adding: "You have to see this thing."



In response to Davies' project, McDonald's spokeswoman Theresa Riley emailed The Upshot a statement defending the quality of the chain's food. Riley's email also blasted Davies' "completely unsubstantiated" work as something out of "the realm of urban legends."



"McDonald's hamburger patties in the United States are made with 100% USDA-inspected ground beef," Riley wrote. "Our hamburgers are cooked and prepared with salt, pepper and nothing else -- no preservatives, no fillers. Our hamburger buns are baked locally, are made from North American-grown wheat flour and include common government-approved ingredients designed to assure food quality and safety. ... According to Dr. Michael Doyle, Director, Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia, 'From a scientific perspective, I can safely say that the way McDonald's hamburgers are freshly processed, no hamburger would look like this after one year unless it was tampered with or held frozen.'"

Source

Food firms spend millions to block food health warning labels

The food industry spent more than a billion dollars in its successful campaign to defeat a European labeling plan designed to make it easy for consumers to identify healthy and less healthy food options.



Under the proposed "traffic light" plan, which has already been adopted by some European supermarkets, foods would be marked with a series of prominent green, yellow or red circles representing different key nutrients. A red light would mean that the product should be consumed only occasionally, a yellow light would mean the product could safely be consumed in moderation, and a green light would mean the product was good to consume in quantity.



Concerned that such a plan would turn consumers away from sugary drinks, salty snacks and other foods labeled with a number of "red lights," the food industry poured €1 billion ($1.2 billion) into lobbying the European Parliament to reject the scheme.



Food industry lobbying had previously convinced the parliament's environment committee to reject the plan, by a 32-30 vote.



The traffic light plan would be an important contribution to efforts to reign in obesity, said Monique Goyens of the consumer group BEUC.



"Consumers have a right to clear and easy-to-understand information on packaging," Goyens said. "At a time when one in five Europeans are obese, there should be no reason not to empower individuals to improve their diets if they so wish."



But instead, the parliament adopted an industry-backed plan that will put calorie, fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate, sugar and salt content on the front label of foods, with reference to the daily recommended intake per 100 milliliters or 100 grams.



Supporters of the traffic light plan -- who include medical associations, anti-obesity advocates, consumer groups, and a majority of British shoppers -- expressed anger at the decision.



"They prefer complex labels that make it far harder for shoppers to really understand what's going in their basket," said British MEP Glenis Willmott.



Source