Home

Nanotechnology: Tracking food from farm to fork…and you right along with it

21 Comments

Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2011 All Rights Reserved

______________________________________________

Noting “certain food-related ailments” this committee failed to ask the most obvious and relevant question: 

If these ailments are a result of the food we are eating…..what is the underlying problem with the food?  And why would finding a remedy for this increase in possibly deadly ailments include further contamination and adulteration of the food supply with nano-chips? 

_______________________________________________

I had come across an article in the Dairy Reporter last year, about the coming plans to insert nano-technology into food.  In the article from DR: Nanotechnology in food: What’s the big idea? By Caroline Scott-Thomas, 26-Jul-2010 this observation was made: 

“At IFT’s nanoscience conference last week, major industry players discussed how to avoid a rerun of the GMO debacle with consumers – with some saying that one solution could be to say nothing about introducing nanotechnology in foods and to do it anyway.”

We all have enough experience with today’s bio-pirates who are openly colluding with the USDA, FDA and anyone else in government, like “Dirty Harry” Reid NV (D), who single-handedly and unanimously cast the one vote needed to pass the fake food safety bill, to know that food safety and longer shelf life is most likely not what this technology is actually intended to do.  As it is, most products on the shelves of stores now are so chemically laden and contain so much gmo that I doubt spoilage is an option. After all….can chemicals, pesticides and herbicides actually rot?    More

New Zealand gets a pass on dairy testing for growth hormones: It isn’t necessary?

1 Comment

Almost as a portend of what is to come should the attempts to pass S510 succeed, New Zealand AG is spared any testing for growth hormones in milk…..because they have strict laws concerning the use of hormones in milking cows.  That’s really nice, but th ebulk of their milk products come from Fonterra, a Canadian based corporation who supplies dried milk products to NewZealand……so it would appear that the milk cows and subsequent laws governing them, are of no consequence.

Fonterra, which sells dried milk powder to China under the brand name Synutra, denies there is any link between their product, growth hormones and the developement of breasts in infants fed these products.  China sells the milk product to New Zealand. 

See how easy that all is?  Fonterra says there is no threat; China says its product is not at fault and  New Zealand says their milk cows don’t need to be tested, and babies are sprouting boobies all over the place.  A cosmic mystery for sure!  Marti_____________________________________

Synutra defends products in light of hormone scare

By Guy Montague-Jones, 13-Aug-2010

Related topics: Regulation & Safety

Chinese dairy Synutra International has affirmed its belief that its products are safe and in no way linked to recent allegations of premature breast development in infant girls.

Media reports earlier in the week said that medical tests had found excessive levels of hormones in three young girls who had allegedly consumed milk powder made by Synutra. Parents of the children and doctors in the Hebei province had expressed concern that the products caused the girls, aged four- to 15 months, to prematurely develop breasts.

Defense

Synutra has now responded to these allegations. In a statement, Liang Zhang, chairman and CEO of Synutra, said: “We are seeing many industry experts speak out about the lack of scientific evidence between infant formula and these claims. More

MERCOLA: The Science of Rigging Studies

1 Comment

Live Link: MERCOLA.com

Excerpted:

The Science of Rigging Studies

Cambridge University’s Dr. Richard Jennings, a leading researcher on scientific ethics, described the study as “flagrant fraud.” But there are plenty more examples of “cooked” research in the much more critical area of GMO safety assessments. More

Ethicureans post The New USDA guidelines

Leave a comment

January 22, 2009   (this is from early in the year but quite relevant now)

NATURALLY RAISED.
smokingchicken.jpgIf you were told an animal was “naturally raised,” what would you imagine that meant? Is it evidence that they wandered a field? Felt the touch of sunlight? Ate their normal diet? Well, no. At least, that’s not what it means if you see “naturally raised” on a package of meat. The USDA released their guidelines for the marketing term this week. Grass, sunlight, and open space don’t enter into it. Rather, animals are “naturally raised” if they “have been raised entirely without growth promotants, antibiotics (except for ionophores used as coccidiostats for parasite control), and have never been fed animal by-products.”

Got that? No growth promotants or antibiotics — except, of course, for ionophores used as coccidiostats — or eating the ground-up remains of other animals. That’s what counts as a natural upbringing in our food production system. We have not medically accelerated your growth nor made you into an inadvertent cannibal nor crammed you into such unhealthful conditions that you needed to be pumped full of antibiotics to stay alive.

The problem with this label is not specifically how the animals are raised. Excising antibiotics and growth promotants from their diet is a good thing. The problem is what the USDA’s new guidelines say about, well, the USDA. These guidelines are a simple act of collusion with the marketing teams in the livestock industry. When a consumer sees “naturally raised,” they almost certainly don’t say to themselves, “Terrific! This chicken was raised entirely without growth promotants, antibiotics (except for ionophores used as coccidiostats for parasite control), and has never been fed animal by-products!” The implication of “naturally raised” is that the chicken lived the natural life of a chicken, not the life of a widget. But USDA has defined it as living the life of a widget, just not a particularly heavily medicated widget. And why have naturally raised” at all? The shrinkwrap enclosing a chicken breast has room for “No growth hormones or antibiotics!” They’re using “naturally raised” because it’s more efficiently misleading to consumers who want to do good by eating well, and the USDA is just gave its seal of approval to the practice.

See the Ethicureans for more.

Image used under a CC license from NukeIt1.

What You Never Expected to Hear About Water Fluoridation

1 Comment

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2003/09/10/water-fluoridation-part-three.aspx

By Dr. Joseph Mercola,  with Rachael Droege

flor_dees

Imagine a drug being prescribed to the entire U.S. population with no consent and no way to track dosage or individual reactions, and without concern for some people’s increased vulnerability to the drug. It sounds crazy, but that is exactly what is happening in the United States with water fluoridation.

Fluoride has been added to the U.S. water supply for over 50 years in order to prevent dental decay. Not only is the practice unsafe, which I will address later, it is also ineffective. Data compiled by the World Health Organization shows no difference in tooth decay in countries that use fluoridated water compared with countries that don’t use fluoridated water.

Further, several additional studies have found that tooth decay rates do not increase when water fluoridation is stopped, and in some cases the rates even go down. The largest U.S. survey, conducted from 1986 to 1987, found that fluoridated water made no difference in tooth decay when measured in terms of DMFT (Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth), and made a statistically insignificant difference (on about 0.5 percent of 128 tooth surfaces) when measured as DMFS (Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth Surfaces).

When water fluoridation first began it was believed that fluoride had to be ingested for it to be effective. However, this has since changed and the dental community now almost unanimously believes that fluoride’s benefits result from topical application, not when it is swallowed.

Despite fluorides apparent ineffectiveness, it is still used in the United States, but not without consequence. The fluoride that we ingest from the water supply and from a number of other sources such as toothpaste, mouthwashes, processed food, some vitamin tablets, and beverages like fruit juice, soda and tea is associated with a number of negative health effects. Consider that:

  • Fluoride accumulates in the bones, making them brittle and more easily fractured, and in the pineal gland, which may inhibit the production of the hormone melatonin, which helps regulate the onset of puberty
  • Fluoride damages tooth enamel (known as dental fluorosis) and may lower fertility rates
  • Fluoride has been found to increase the uptake of aluminum into the brain and lead into blood
  • Fluoride inhibits antibodies from forming in the blood
  • Fluoride confuses the immune system, causing it to attack the body’s tissues. This can increase the growth rate of tumors in people prone to cancer More

%d bloggers like this: