Thousands of Kids’ Products Contain Toxic Chemicals

More than 5,000 products, including clothing, toys and bedding, contain toxic chemicals that could be dangerous for children’s health, yet stores still stock them and consumers know little about their content, an advocacy group reported this week.

"For most products in our homes, including children’s products, we simply don’t have standards," said Erika Schreder, science director for the Washington Toxics Coalition and author of the report released Wednesday based on toxic chemical data from Washington state. "Manufacturers are allowed to use just about anything they want to."

The report, called "Chemicals Revealed," identified more than 5,000 products such as footwear, car seats and arts and crafts supplies that include developmental or reproductive toxins and carcinogens. Those include such toxic metals as mercury, cadmium, cobalt, antimony and molybdenum. Manufacturers also reported using phthalates in clothing, toys, bedding and baby products. Phthalates, hormone-disrupting chemicals, most are often used to make plastics pliable.

The Washington Toxics Coalition and Safer States, a coalition of consumer advocacy groups, looked at products sold in Washington state. The state in 2008 began requiring retailers to report whether they’re selling products that contain one of 66 chemicals identified by the state as being of high concern to children.

The legislation required major companies making children’s products to report to the Washington State Department of Ecology beginning last year. The report covers certain children’s products sold in the state from June 1, 2012, to March 1, 2013.

Major retailers who reported using the chemicals in their products include Walmart, Gap, Gymboree, Hallmark and H&M.

 

Retailers aren’t required to report the exact product, however, just product categories. The report identified Hallmark party hats containing cancer-causing arsenic, for example, but because of the limited data that manufacturers and retailers are required to disclose, it’s impossible to specify the exact party hat.

Among the other products identified in the report: Graco car seats containing the toxic flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol A, Claire’s cosmetics containing cancer-causing formaldehyde, and Walmart dolls containing hormone-disrupting bisphenol A.

The groups praised manufacturers and retailers for providing even limited data, saying that the information is critical for understanding the presence of toxic chemicals. Yet to truly protect children, Schreder said, manufacturers need to identify safer ways to make their products and stop using harmful chemicals. The organization also backs efforts to ban two fire retardants in Washington state.

To find out more, consumers must press the individual retailers and manufacturers for more information, said Sarah Doll of Safer States, which is part of a network of environmental health groups nationwide.

“The biggest thing that this does is to demonstrate a system that’s broken, and to ask for better protection,” Doll said. “You can actually go to the retailer and say, ‘I want you to ask your suppliers if these products contain those chemicals.’”

Only Maine has a similar program, but other states may follow Washington’s lead in the absence of federal rules. A federal Government Accountability Office report issued in March found that the Environmental Protection Agency is limited under the Toxic Substances Control Act authority.

Of the 83 chemicals EPA has prioritized for risk assessment, the agency initiated seven assessments in 2012 and plans to start 18 additional assessments this year and next, the GAO report found.

The report also found it may take several years to complete these initial risk assessments and, at the agency’s current pace, more than a decade to complete all 83. The EPA does not have the toxicity and exposure data needed for 58 of the 83 chemicals prioritized for risk assessment, the report found.

Two Democratic senators, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2013, which would give the EPA more tools to collect health and safety information on chemicals, screen them for safety and require risk management when chemicals cannot be proven safe.

"The one saving grace of our national chemical policy is that it at least allows the states to act. Right now they are shedding the only light we have on what toxic chemicals end up in products," said Andy Igrejas, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, an organization of state groups devoted to reducing the toxicity of consumer goods.

Source:

www.mcclatchydc.com

http://worldtruth.tv

 

If you want to help these blog , like and share the facebook page :

http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

 

General Mills’ Ken Powell Maintains Opposition to Labeling GMOs

Ken Powell, chairman and CEO of General Mills Inc., restated his opposition to mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms, commonly called GMOs, at a conference in California.

The conference, called Brainstorm Green, was put on by Fortune. In an uneditedtranscript posted by the magazine, Powell said GMOs are safe and they're part of a solution to feeding the world's growing population.

Powell said he didn't have a problem with specialty retailer Whole Foods' recent announcement it would require GMO information on labels.

He said he's not opposed to Whole Foods' policy because General Mills' organic brands -- such as Muir Glenn, Cascadian Farms, Larabar and Food Should Taste Good -- that it sells to Whole Foods are GMO free.

Powell said virtually every product in the grocery store contains GMOs, and he doesn't think it's a good idea to label those as having GMOs.

 

General Mills spent about $1 million lobbying with other food manufacturers to defeat a measure in California that would have required GMOs to be disclosed on food labels, according to the story.

If such a rule was implemented on a state-by-state basis, it would cost consumers more because manufactures would have change how they manage their supply chains, Powell said.

He added that there wouldn't be room to include GMO information on product labels.

 

"Consumers tell us, and I think they're right, that they want to know about the ingredients, they want to know the nutrition information of that product, they want to know if there's a safety thing, if there's peanuts in there or something like that. They need to know these things. But we should restrict the use of that label for this important information, and limit it to that. If we broaden it to other things that could be anything, I mean it could be anything, causes that we have, things that we believe in, we'll need to add pages to the label, and we simply don't think we should do that."

Source:

www.bizjournals.com

http://worldtruth.tv

If you want to help these blog , like and share the facebook page :

http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

Foods that Protect Skin from the Sun‏

Aside from slathering on sunblock and opting to sit in the shade, your diet can also play an important role in protecting your skin from the sun's harmful rays. So read on and stock your kitchen with these!

New research suggests some foods have the power to guard skin from the damage caused by the sun's UV radiation. While a salad is no substitute for sunblock, these healthy foods could add inner protection against sunburn and wrinkles at the cellular level.

Broccoli

This super-food, along with cabbage and brussel sprouts, contains isothiocyanates, enzymes that have been shown to be anti-carcinogenic. They are also believed to boost the production of protective enzymes that defend cells against UV damage. Win win!

 

Tomatoes

"Lycopene, a potent antioxidant found in tomatoes, has many sun-protecting benefits," explains Los Angeles-based dermatologist, Dr. Annie Chiu. A German study recently examined the benefits of store-bought tomato paste. After only 10 weeks, subjects who ingested the paste experienced significantly less redness from the sun compared to those who did not.

Coconut Oil

We've all heard about beauty products with coconut oil in them, but did you know that if you eat this must-try miracle food it can nourish your skin from the inside out? "Coconuts contains lauric acid, which has antimicrobial properties, and the saturated fat in coconut oil also protects the skin from UV damage from the sun," says Dr. Lipman.

Goji Berries

Animal studies suggest that these berries "may provide significant protection against oxidative stress induced by UVA radiation and may reduce sunburn-induced inflammation and swelling.

Green Tea

Instead of coffee, opt for this antioxidant-rich beverage. "Green tea contains polyphenol antioxidants, which are UV protective," says Dr. Chiu. A double-blind, placebo controlled study demonstrated that consumption of green tea over 12 weeks significantly decreased sun-induced redness in the skin.

Oranges

Need another reason to stalk up on citrus? "Vitamin C abundant produce protects against UV light exposure and can reduce inflammation associated with sunburns," explains Dr. Chiu. It is also known to decrease the activity of enzymes activated by UV exposure. Meaning: your skin's collagen will stay strong and firm looking.

 

Mushrooms

Fungai is abundant in beta-glucan, which may provide photoprotective qualities by decreasing UV-induced oxidative stress, explains Dr. Chiu.

Dark Chocolate

Satisfy your sweet tooth with dark chocolate or cocoa, both of which are rich in flavonoids. "Flavonoids have powerful antioxidant activity that can help inhibit harmful UV-triggered chemical pathways that may lead to skin cancer," says Dr. Chiu.

Collared Greens Salmons

Chow down on leafy greens! According to Dr. Frank Lipman, an expert in integrative medicine, they contain beta-carotenes, which contribute to the growth and repair of body tissues and may also protect your skin against sun damage.

Salmon

“Foods that are rich in omega-3 fatty acids are known to reduce inflammation,” says New York-based dermatologist, Dr. Dennis Gross. This is particularly helpful for those who suffer from chronic skin conditions like eczema, as the omega-3s help to maintain a healthy cell membrane and hold in moisture.

 

Carrots

Carrots—or any other red, yellow, and orange fruits and vegetables—are packed with carotenoids, and studies show they reduce sunburn intensity.

Walnuts

Like salmon, walnuts are high is essential fatty acids that could guard against sunburn.

Source:

Rd.com

http://worldtruth.tv

If you want to help these blog , like and share the facebook page :

http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

 

 

Minority Groups Backing Portland’s Pro Fluoride Measure Were Paid $143,000‏

The campaign advocating fluoridation of Portland’s drinking water has trumpeted the support it’s received from minority organizations, ranging from the Urban League of Portland to the Latino Network.This widespread support, backers say, shows just how important fluoridation is to the constituents of these groups.And the support flows the other way, too: in the form of big cash paid to groups who have endorsed the pro-fluoride campaign, Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland. As first reported at wweek.com, Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland has doled out at least $143,000—about a third of what it has spent so far—to seven organizations that favor  the May 21 referendum to fluoridate the city’s drinking water, Measure 26-151.The move is highly unorthodox for a political campaign: Typically, groups that endorse a measure contribute money, not receive it.
Oregon’s free-wheeling campaign-finance laws place virtually no limits on how campaigns spend their money. But the state’s undue-influence law prohibits campaigns from paying individuals or organizations in exchange for their political support.Dan Meek, a public-interest lawyer active in campaign-finance reform, says it is unusual for groups to endorse a campaign and then receive money from that campaign. “This is a new approach,” he says.Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland says the payments were intended to help the organizations promote Measure 26-151, and were not given in exchange for the groups’ support of the pro-fluoride effort.
“Fluoride and dental health are really important to low-income communities and communities of color,” says Healthy Kids, Health Portland campaign manager Evyn Mitchell.  “We are trying to provide capacity to the groups that will do the outreach.”
Mitchell says the groups that got money were active supporters of fluoridation for more than a year before the campaign began.

Nonetheless, the payments have raised eyebrows, including at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which endorsed a “no” vote on fluoridation and did not receive a check from the Healthy Kids campaign.
“We were scratching our heads about these so-called minority groups,” says Cliff Walker of the NAACP’s Portland chapter. “It was suggested that people were getting paid.”
Measure 26-151 requires the city of Portland to begin fluoridating its drinking water by March 2014. Currently, Portland is one of the nation’s largest cities not to add fluoride to its water supply. Health experts say fluoridated water cuts down on tooth decay, especially among children.
The City Council approved fluoridating the water supply last fall, including plans to build a $5 million fluoridation plant.
But opponents—who argue fluoridating the water is costly and unhealthy—gathered enough signatures to force a 2014 public vote on the idea. The council responded by moving up the vote to the May 21 election.
Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland has so far received about $587,000 in campaign contributions.
The biggest source of donations to the campaign is the Northwest Health Foundation, which has given $215,000. The foundation’s president and CEO, Nichole Maher, is closely involved with the pro-fluoridation campaign.
Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland turned around and paid $20,000 each to the Urban League of Portland, the Latino Network, the Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon, Center for Intercultural Organizing, and the Immigrant & Refugee Community Organization. The Oregon Latino Health Coalition got $5,000. Another group, the Native American Youth and Family Center, has been paid $37,810.
Maher says the groups getting money from the Healthy Kids campaign lack the resources to educate voters and improve turnout. Providing them modest financial support, she says, is appropriate.
“We are really proud of the strategy for fluoride and for building a better electorate in Portland,” Maher says. “Let’s give these communities some credit for being part of the conversation from the beginning.”
Before Maher took the top job at the Northwest Health Foundation last year, she served as executive director of NAYA Family Center, the biggest recipient of Healthy Kids’ contributions to nonprofits.
She says the NAYA Family Center is also acting as an agent for the Coalition of Communities of Color, which is also doing fluoride outreach, and that NAYA passed the $17,810 contribution through to CCC. “[NAYA] had a strong relationship with the Northwest Health Foundation long before I got here,” Maher adds.

Matt Morton, NAYA’s executive director, says any implication that the payments his group received are a quid pro quo is “offensive.”
Morton says NAYA’s support for fluoride and better dental health long precedes payments from the campaign. He says NAYA is using the money for voter activation, engagement and education on dental health.
“Campaigns don’t often engage communities of color because we are not high-frequency voters,” Morton says. “But the strength of this campaign is that it was built from the ground up.”
The Rev. Joseph Santos-Lyons, executive director of APANO, echoes Morton. He says his group was involved in fluoridation efforts long before the campaign began.

Santos-Lyons says APANO has not received a contribution from a political-action committee before, although it has been active in a number of ballot measures. He says APANO is using the contribution to hold four fluoride forums and hire an organizer.
“I hope this sets a precedent that to win, you need to actually work with organizations like ours,” Santos-Lyons says.
Maher says spending campaign money on the various groups makes sense and is a tactic long overdue in Portland political campaigns. She says low-income and minority Portlanders would benefit most from fluoridation because they suffer more cavities and other dental problems.

But the arrangement could run into trouble with the state’s campaign-disclosure laws for a couple of reasons.
First, the law requires campaigns such as Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland to disclose what services are being provided in exchange for the money.
“If [Healthy Kids] has no contract with the organizations and the organizations aren’t required to do anything, you could construe that as a problem,” Meek says.
Filings with the State Elections Division say only that the $143,000 paid to groups will be spent on “yard signs, buttons, etc.”
But there’s a problem with that disclosure: Mitchell, manager of the Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland campaign, acknowledges to WW there is no requirement for the groups to produce such materials.
“We have partnership agreements in writing,” Mitchell says. “It’s a basic agreement that they will provide organizing support for the fluoridation issue and attend weekly check-ins.”
Mitchell declined, however, to provide copies of any of the written agreements she says Healthy Kids has with the various groups.
If the groups spend the money to campaign independently for Measure 26-151, state law could require them to disclose how they spent the money. “If the recipient groups are indeed doing ‘outreach services’ for the measure, they should each be registered as a political committee,” Meek says. None of the groups has done so yet.
Morton and Lyons say there’s no need for such filings. Both say that their organizations, which are non-profits, are allowed to engage in limited political activities, and their work on fluoride is well within such bounds.
Meek, who has filed ballot measures aimed at reforming Oregon’s campaign-finance laws, says the big checks to fluoridation supporters are a sign the system is broken.
“This illustrates another big loophole in Oregon campaign-finance laws: pushing money into the hands of agents, who are then not required to report how they spent the money,” Meek says.
Maher disagrees. She says the fluoride issue represents in part a long-overdue recognition that political campaigns need to reach out to minority voters. “Portland is changing,” Maher says, “and the electorate is changing.”

Money With Teeth
Supporters of Measure 26-151, which would require fluoridation of Portland’s drinking water, have far outraised opponents. The other side, Clean Water Portland, has seen nearly half its money come from out-of-state donors. (See related story here.)
PRO:
Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland
Raised to date: $587,000
Cash on hand: $192,000
Top Five Donors:
Northwest Health Foundation: $215,000
Oregon Dental Association: $67,500
CareOregon: $50,000
FamilyCare: $50,000
Washington Dental Service Foundation: $50,000
CON:
Clean Water Portland
Raised to date: $190,000
Cash on hand: $83,000
Top Five Donors
James Garvey: $43,000
Roger Burt: $11,000
Carl and Roberta Deutsch Family Trust: $10,000
Daniel Deutsch: $10,000
Abundant Living Information Services: $9,000
Source:
Source: Oregon Elections Division

If you want to help these blog , like and share the facebook page :

http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

Are You Ready for the Genetically Modified “Frankenapple”?

Move over frankenfish, frankensoy, frankencorn, frankentomatoes and frankencotton.

The Frankenapple – or Arctic Apple – is genetically modified to never brown, but the side effects are unknown.

I’m talking about a new genetically modified “food” manufacturers call the Arctic Apple.

This genetically modified apple contains a synthetic gene that prevents it from browning or bruising. Even after you bite it or slice it.

Thanks to the biotech industry’s relentless quest to control our food, McDonald’s, Burger King and even school cafeterias will soon be able to serve up apples that won’t turn brown when they’re sliced or bitten into. A new, almost entirely untested genetic modification technology, called RNA interference, or double strand RNA (dsRNA), is responsible for this new food miracle. Scientists warn that this genetic manipulation poses health risks, as the manipulated RNA gets into our digestive systems and bloodstreams. The biotech industry claims otherwise.

Of course, like any non-organic apple, the new GMO Arctic® Apple will be drenched in toxic pesticide residues, untested by the U.S. Food & Drug Association (FDA) and likely unlabeled. And of course these shiny new high-tech apples will be cheap, priced considerably lower than a pesticide-free, nutrient-dense, old-fashioned organic apple that turns a little brown after you slice it up.

When the Biotech Industry Organization gathers  in Chicago for the 2013 BIO International Convention, BIOTECanada will present its “Gold Leaf Award for Early Stage Agriculture” to Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc. (OSF), purveyor of the Arctic® Apple, slated for approval in the U.S. this year. We hate to upset the biotech apple cart, but a pesticide-intensive GMO apple, produced through a risky manipulation of RNA, doesn’t deserve a place on our grocery shelves, much less in the agriculture hall of fame.

That said, the Arctic “Frankenapple” is expected to be approved this year by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), responsible for protecting agriculture from pests and diseases. It does not require approval by the FDA, which is responsible for human food and animal feed.

Just one more bad apple
Apples, that is, apples that haven’t been certified organic, already are on the list of Should-Be-Forbidden fruits. They reliably top the Environmental Working Group’s Dirty Dozen list, for both the volume and the stunning array of pesticides consistently found on them. According to the Pesticide Action Network’s analysis of the most recent USDA data, apples tested positive for 42 pesticides, including organophosphate and pyrethroid pesticides. Both are endocrine disruptors, both have suspected neurological effects, and both are considered especially toxic for children. (Organophosphates are the basis for nerve gases used in chemical warfare, and have been linked to the development of ADHD in kids.)

Given the grim report card of non-organic apples, some might say it really doesn’t make any difference if we start tinkering with the apple’s genes and RNA. After all, unlike the case with GMO corn or salmon, scientists aren’t injecting pesticides or genes from foreign plants or animals into the genes of apples to create the Frankenapple. While most existing genetically engineered plants are designed to make new proteins, the Arctic Apple is engineered to produce a form of genetic information called double-stranded RNA (dsRNA). The new dsRNA alters the way genes are expressed. The result, in the Arctic Apple’s case, is a new double strand of RNA that genetically “silences” the apple’s ability to produce polyphenol oxidase, an enzyme that causes the apple to turn brown when it’s exposed to oxygen.

Harmless? The biotech industry, OSF and some scientists say yes. But others, including Professor Jack Heinemann (University of Canterbury, New Zealand), Sarah Agapito-Tenfen (from Santa Catarina University in Brazil) and Judy Carman (Flinders University in South Australia), say that dsRNA manipulation is untested, and therefore inherently risky. Given that the dsRNA from our food, and presumably the Frankenapple, will enter the bloodstream and cells of consumers, safety research should be done BEFORE this GMO apple is put on the grocery shelf to prove that the dsRNA that enters consumers' bodies will not harm them. To date, no such research has been reported, so the Frankenapple is flying in the dark.

On the contrary, recent research has shown that dsRNAs can transfer from plants to humans and other animals through food. The biotech industry has always claimed that genetically engineered DNA or RNA is destroyed by human digestion, eliminating the danger of these mutant organisms damaging human genes or human health. But many biotech scientists say otherwise. They point to evidence that the dsRNA present in food survive digestion in the stomach and intestines and actually enter the bloodstream and tissues of the body, where it can influence the functioning of the eater's cells.

 

There are indirect health consequences, too. Turns out the chemical compound that is shut off in the engineered fruit through RNA manipulation, in order to make it not oxidize or brown, is a chemical compound that also fights off plant pests. What happens when the apple’s ability to fend off insects is compromised? Growers will need to spray greater amounts, of possibly even more toxic pesticides, on a crop already saturated with at least 42 types of pesticides. Those pesticides will eventually find their way into our bodies, either because we ingested the fruit, or breathed the air or drank the water where the pesticides were sprayed.

Testing? What testing?
So what’s the trade-off? Non-organic apple growers will prosper as more moms buy more apples for more kids who will, the industry alleges, be healthier for it.  It makes for a good public relations story, but no matter how you wrap it up or slice it, taking apples that are already saturated in pesticides, and genetically engineering them for purely cosmetic purposes, does not a healthy snack make.

The pro- and anti-GMO movements will debate whether or not the GMO apple is safe for human consumption. The fact is, we’ll never know until they are properly labeled and safety-tested. As with every other GMO food ingredient or product sold in the U.S., the Arctic Apple will undergo no independent safety testing by the FDA or the USDA. Instead, the USDA will rely on OSF’s word that the apple is safe for human consumption. And without any state or federal mandatory GMO labeling laws in place, OSF will not be required to label its Frankenapple, meaning that consumers or children harmed by the dsRNA modified apple will have great difficulty identifying the mutant RNA that harmed them.

The controversy and debate surrounding dsRNA and the Arctic Apple has just begun. But there is no longer any debate about the dangers that pesticides and pesticide residues on non-organic apples pose to humans, whether we directly ingest these toxic residues by eating an apple, or whether we’re exposed to them through contaminated air and groundwater as a result of acres of orchards being sprayed to control increasingly resistant insects and diseases.

What about the argument that a kid eating a few slices of apples can’t consume enough of any one of these pesticides to cause any real risk to their health? Debunked. Recent studies reveal that during apple season, kids exhibit spikes in the level of pesticides found in their urine, spikes that exceed the U.S. government’s “safe levels.” Kids who live in apple-growing regions show even higher spikes. And those 42 varieties of pesticides? The government establishes “safe levels” for each one – but it doesn’t test for the potential effect of ingesting 42 different pesticides, all chemically interacting with each other, and ingested all at once. And there is good evidence that these interactions often potentiate harmful effects.

 

From biodiversity to monoculture
How did we get to the point where it takes 42 pesticides to keep an apple crop healthy? Michael Pollan best explains it in his book Botany of Desire. Turns out that apples have an extreme tendency toward something called heterozygosity, which means genetic variability. This trait accounts for how, left to its own devices, the apple can “make itself at home in places as different from one another as New England and New Zealand, Kazakhstan and California.” Pollan writes: “Wherever the apple tree goes, its offspring propose so many different variations on what it means to be an apple – at least five per apple, several thousand per tree – that a couple of these novelties are almost bound to have whatever qualities it takes to prosper in the tree’s adopted home.”

Today, you’d have to visit the apple orchard museum in Geneva, New York, to find all the varieties of apples that used to thrive in the wild. Over time, in our quest to control the taste, texture and appearance of apples, we’ve eliminated all but a relative few varieties. We’ve gone too far, says Pollan. By relying on too few genes for too long, the apple has lost its ability to get along on its own, outdoors.

Enter the agro-chemical companies. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Agricultural Chemical Use Program, apple growers in states surveyed in 2011 applied carbaryl to 46 percent of their acreage, at an average rate  of 1.566 pounds per acre for the crop year; chlorantraniliprole to 45 percent;  and chlorpyrifos to 44 percent. Apple growers applied glyphosate isopropylamine salt (trade name RoundUp, the same herbicide used on 75% of all GMOs and shown to cause birth defects) to 25 percent of acres at an average of 1.604 pounds per acre for the crop year. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

The Arctic Apple has been in development for over a decade, the company says. OSF submitted a petition for deregulation to the USDA in May 2010. The USDA, which must hold two public comment periods, concluded the first on Sept. 11, 2011. It’s expected to open the second public comment period this spring or summer, and OSF hopes the GMO apple will be approved for growing and selling in the U.S. this year.

Source:

www.organicconsumers.org

http://worldtruth.tv

If you want to help these blog , like and share the facebook page :

http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

Biosecurity Board suspends entry of 26 GMOs to Turkey

The Biosecurity Board has decided to ban the entry of 26 genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into Turkey amid ongoing debates about whether genetically modified rice passed through customs.
The board, which is the deciding body on the issue in the country, unanimously rejected the entry authorization demands.The banned products include genetically modified sugar beet and rapeseed, which are permitted in European Union countries as feeders.Also, the demand to use 22 types of genetically modified corns as fuel was rejected unanimously on the grounds of scientific concerns about the products.With these decisions, only 19 products were allowed to enter Turkish markets.
Corns and soy in 19 genetic types have been authorized to be imported for use as animal feed.
Board calls for further research
The board also called on universities and the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) to conduct research on genetically modified products.
The Biosecurity Board’s decision came right after a debate on genetically modified rice. Recently, executives of three food companies were detained on grounds that rice about to be imported into Turkey from the Mersin port was genetically modified. The executives were later released. This incident has caused the debate on GMOs to heat up again. American officials joined the debate, saying legislation in Turkey should change and that penalties for GMOs should be moderated.
Corn and soy, in which GMOs are intensively used, are used as feed for chicken, fish and cattle. Corns generally make up about 10 to 20 percent of cattle feed, while soy constitutes less than 10 percent of this feed. Soy products are mostly used in fish feed.
The usage of GMOs as animal feed poses a threat to human health since scientific research has revealed that GMOs could pass from animals to humans when their meat is consumed.
U.S. officials demand Turkey facilitate usage of GMOs and soften the penalties on the issue.
Source:
www.organicconsumers.org
http://worldtruth.tv


If you want to help these blog , like and share the facebook page :

http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblogv

 

Human Tissue Found in Meats

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

 

The horse meat fiasco in Europe has prodded scientists to look a bit deeper into what else we might be consuming. A team of South African scientists have just found traces of human tissue in meat meant for public consumption from 9 provinces. The issue was revealed to parliament, almost as a side note, during Human Tissue briefings on Tuesday. A University of Stellenbosch scientist and his team conducted a microbial analysis that revealed traces of human elements, but said that slaughterhouse workers sometimes cut themselves . . . or other things . . . which could lead to the findings.

“If I walked into a factory and the sample I randomly selected to test was a meat sample of which the person de-boning the meat had just picked his nose and then touched the meat, I would get a totally different microbial reading,” he said.

Delicious. Beyond the findings themselves, it brings up the global hot-button topic of the moment: food labeling. How much should we know about what we are consuming?

In addition to the troubling statements above, scientist Louw Hoffman noted that only 15% of the meat being sold in South Africa is correctly labeled, revealing other potentially harmful attributes of which consumers are currently unaware:

“In the labelling regulations it clearly states that allergens have to be mentioned and noted,” said Hoffman.

Allergens like . . . other people’s genetic signature?

Yet, Hoffman and his team of scientists concluded that the incorrect labeling poses “no threat” to the consumers who eat it, despite some more gems uncovered:

Meat Musical Chairs

Briefing parliament’s portfolio committee on agriculture, forestry and fisheries, University of Western Cape forensic scientist Dr Eugenia D’Amato said nearly 43% of samples she had tested which were labelled as game, were, in fact, beef.

D’Amato said horse meat had also been used as a substitute for springbok (an African Gazelle with meat similar to beef) in biltong, and pork was found in ostrich sausages.

There was also a smaller proportion of kangaroo in samples.

Despite the overall findings that consumers have absolutely no idea what they are eating – including human remnants – in 85% of the products, SA’s Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries deputy director-general downplayed it by asserting that we are not becoming unwitting cannibals:

“It is possible that (if tested) we could find traces of human DNA in meat. However, even if we do find human DNA, it does not mean we are eating human flesh.”

Great. Unfortunately, we are evidently eliminating healthy microorganisms in the processing of foods, but since there is an acceptable standard of nasty foreign entities, thanks to our regulatory agencies – we have introduced a variety of contaminants into now weakened guts and immune systems. We’d like to think that these food scandals are safe from us – overseas, it’s their problem. But, big problems are usually systemic and many of the developed nations are on the same platform. As with most food scandals, they go on for years unnoticed before the beans are spilled. It doesn't sound like anyone’s literally being run through the meat grinder just yet, but it’s a startling fact that we don’t know much about what our food comes into contact with. And we have scientists and regulatory agencies continually asserting how safe our food supply is.

Are you unsettled at the prospect of ingesting someone else’s particles and blood? Do you wonder what else will be found when the next scientific investigation is conducted in your country?

Perhaps we should be asking ourselves before each meal, “Hey, who’s in there? How’d they get in there? Anyone missing?”

Source:

www.wakingtimes.com

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

Whole Foods, United Natural Foods and the Myth of Natural

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

WHY ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION  BELIEVES THAT MOST "NATURAL" FOODS ARE A FRAUD

• There is widespread use of GMO (genetically modified organisms) ingredients in so-called "natural" foods, including the "natural" brands that make up most of WFM and UNFI's sales.
• So-called "natural" (non-organic) soy milk, including leading brands such as "Silk," are made with conventional soy lecithin, utilizing the hazardous chemical, hexane, as an extraction agent.
• 90% or more of the vitamins and supplements now on the market labeled as "Whole Foods," "natural" or "food based" are spiked with synthetic chemicals.

Why Target Whole Foods and United Natural Foods?

Corporate Takeovers & Monopolistic Practices

The $25 Billion organic marketplace has enjoyed substantial growth for over a decade, thanks to growing consumer consciousness and farmer innovation.

No longer a passing trend or simply a niche market, organic food and farming are proving to be a viable alternative to the unhealthy, unsustainable and unjust conventional food system.

Unprecedented wholesale and retail control of the organic marketplace by UNFI and Whole Foods, employing a business model of selling twice as much so-called "natural" food as certified organic food, coupled with the takeover of many organic companies by multinational food corporations such as Dean Foods, threatens the growth of the organic movement.

Perpetrating "Natural" Fraud

Consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as "natural," and those nutritionally and environmentally superior products that are "certified organic."

Retail stores like WFM and wholesale distributors like UNFI have failed to educate their customers about the qualitative difference between natural and organic.

A troubling trend in organics today is the calculated shift on the part of certain large companies from certified organic ingredients and products to so-called "natural" products. With the exception of the "natural" meat sector, where there are limited voluntary guidelines, there is no definition of "natural." In the majority of cases, "natural" products are green washed conventional products, with "natural" label claims neither policed nor monitored.

Whole Foods and UNFI are maximizing their profits by selling quasi-natural products at premium organic prices. Organic consumers are increasingly left without certified organic choices while organic farmers continue to lose market share to "natural" impostors. It's no wonder that less than 1% of American farmland is certified organic.

Excluding Small and Family Farms

Whole Foods and UNFI's business model of centralized sourcing and prioritizing natural products over organic rewards large corporate farms and processors, to the detriment of local and regional small-scale organic farmers and brands.

Organic farmers must "get big or get out" to be able to compete and have free access to markets. Many industrial organic farms and dairy operations reflect the same abuses and problems of the conventional food system: extremely energy intensive, systematic abuse of workers, reduced food quality, and damage to biodiversity.

So-called "natural" products, since they are actually in most cases conventional products in disguise, are being sold at lower prices than genuine organic products--thereby retarding the growth of the organic sector.

Organic and Local Food?

In light of the food system's significant contribution to the climate crisis and the deepening economic troubles facing local food economies, it is more important than ever to prioritize locally produced organic food.

Though Whole Foods talks a lot about supporting local food and producers, the fact is that the vast majority of their products are not local, and much of what they sell is sourced from a small number of industrial organic operations in California, often owned by the same conventional food conglomerates responsible for destroying the world's food system.

Organic Monopoly and the "Whole Paycheck" Phenomena

UNFI has undermined the growth of the organic movement by implementing an unfair tiered pricing system that gives Whole Foods deep discounts while other grocers, coops and independent retailers pay significantly higher prices, in effect subsidizing UNFI for its reduced profits at Whole Foods.

With UNFI as the largest organic (but of course their sales are mostly so-called "natural" products) food wholesaler and Whole Foods as the largest organic (like UNFI most of its sales are "natural") food retailer, organic consumers are assured higher prices, lower quality and fewer choices.

Cancer in a Bottle?

In 2008, the Organic Consumers Association exposed a problem which particularly threatens women - a large number of leading conventional as well as "natural" and "organic" brands of shampoos, lotions, cosmetics and household cleaning products which contained the carcinogen 1,4-Dioxane.

Included in the list of products were several Whole Food's 365 brand products and many products in the UNFI catalog.

While several dozen companies have committed to eliminating the 1,4-Dioxane, neither Whole Foods, nor UNFI, have endorsed OCA's Coming Clean Campaign, nor have they called on the USDA to crack down on blatant labeling fraud in the organic personal care and cosmetics sector.

Corporate Consolidation of Organics

In the last decade, the organic marketplace has experienced hyper consolidation, with numerous small to medium-sized farmers, manufacturers and retailers being taken over by larger, profit-hungry corporations.

Whole Foods has employed an expansion strategy that resembles Wal-Mart with its targeting of local and independent retailers with new store locations while steadily buying out competitors like Wild Oats.

UNFI has also grown rapidly over the last decade, in part by aggressively taking over other distributors, regional wholesalers and manufacturers.

Organics for Elites?

The organic food and farming movements were born out of the desire to provide healthy and safe food to all. Whole Foods' business model: selling overpriced conventional foods as "natural," with organics in a subordinate role, is a recipe for maximizing profits rather than maximizing the growth of organic food and farming.

Worse yet, Whole Food's high prices have not translated into larger profits for family farms or small-scale manufacturers. Likewise, UNFI's growing market share and near-monopoly of the organic and "natural" market has reduced the options for consumers and independent retailers alike, undermining the growth of consumer buying clubs and the lower-cost alternatives.

Anti-worker

UNFI and Whole Foods have a history of cutting workers' benefits. Both have gone to extreme lengths to block their employees from choosing to unionize. Whole Foods has long fought unionization of its retail locations, largely ignored the demands of farm workers organizations, like the United Farm Workers, and kept workers' wages consistently low by industry standards.

UNFI has repeatedly fought efforts by its employees to fight for better pay, benefits and working conditions. Where workers have sucessfully formed unions, UNFI has begun moving jobs to new, non-union locations.

Source:

www.organicconsumers.org

http://worldtruth.tv

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

What Really Happens When You Take Antibiotics?

If you want this blog to get up with great information:
Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

Antibiotics: One of the most prescribed drug in the modern world! The evidence that proves how harmful this practice can be has been available for a while now. Taking routine course of antibiotics and moreover pouring them into our food has been leading to serious and dangerous side effects, which greatly affect everybody’s health and well being. There are instances when antibiotics can save lives, so they have their place. But switching from specific, well determined and occasional use to a broad use and even worse, to a  ”preventive” measure, in humans and animals, is totally insane and looks like extermination.



Below you have strong evidence which confirms my statements:

Who Is Trying To Patent Marijuana?

If you want this blog to get up with great information:
Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

The secret is out: marijuana is medicine. And not to the surprise of the pharmaceutical industry, who is slowly but surely gaining exclusive rights to the medical properties of this age-old plant.

But wait. How can a company, other than Monsanto, patent a plant? That’s not a serious question, but it brings up a serious point. Patents on marijuana have yet to cover genetic modifications of the plant itself, but rather involve the cannabinoids found in marijuana that are responsible for its medical effects.

Phytocannabinoids in the treatment of cancer (Patent No. US20130059018)

The most recent patent filing on cannabinoids comes from none other than GW Pharmaceuticals – the UK-based company that manufactures Sativex (1). Sativex is an oral spray that contains cannabinoids derived from the cannabis plant itself, specifically THC and CBD. Although Sativex is not yet available in the U.S., it has already gained approval in Canada, the UK and eight other European countries.

GW Pharma has been quick to recognize the market potential of cannabis and their most recent patent application makes this more than clear. Just from the title of the patent, one gets a good sense of what GW Pharma has been trying to claim as their own. “Phytocannabinoids” simply means cannabinoids derived from plants, referring to the cannabis plant in this case.

Unsurprisingly, it appears as though GW Pharma encountered difficulties in trying to claim such a broad “invention”. In fact, the updated version of their patent application shows that more than half of their original patent claims were retracted, and for good reason too. Looking back in time, GW Pharma made claims to just the use of isolated cannabinoids in the treatment of cancer, which is no more of an invention than it is a theft from individuals who first proclaimed marijuana’s cancer-fighting abilities decades ago.

On the other hand, GW Pharma’s remaining claims might just pass through the Patent Office without further questioning. GW Pharma seems to be familiar with the pharmaceutical industry’s shrewd patent strategies, which involves modifying pre-existing compounds that have already been proven to work.

In this case, all GW Pharma had to do was claim that they invented a cannabis-based botanical drug substance for treating cancer – botanical drug substance meaning any form of marijuana prepared by methods as simple as aqueous or ethanolic extraction. There you have it. GW Pharma invented neither cannabis nor a method of extraction, but still consider themselves to be inventors of “phytocannabinoids in the treatment of cancer”.

High Levels of Lead Detected in Imported Rice

If you want this blog to get up with great information:
Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

The biotech industry is pushing the envelope further on the need for genetically modified rice by highlighting recent evidence that rice imported from certain countries contains high levels of lead that could pose health risks, particularly for infants and children, who are especially sensitive to lead’s effects.

Tufts University researchers in Boston recently swapped the term “genetically modified” (GM) for “nutritionally enhanced” so they could proceed with a study testing GM rice on six to eight-year olds.

Greenpeace called the move a “dangerous genetic experiment” and said it had previously exposed illegal cases of GM rice in China.

But now biotech companies are highlighting recent reports which suggest that imported rice contains high levels of lead.

The research, which found some of the highest lead levels in baby food, was among almost 12,000 reports scheduled for the 245th National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society.

Tsanangurayi Tongesayi, Ph.D., who headed the analysis of rice imported from Asia, Europe and South America, pointed out that imports account for only 7 percent of the rice consumed in the United States. With vast rice fields in Louisiana, California, Texas, Arkansas and Mississippi, the U.S. is a major producer and exporter of the grain. However, imports of rice and rice flour are increasing — by more than 200 percent since 1999 — and rice is the staple food for 3 billion people worldwide, he added.

“Such findings present a situation that is particularly worrisome given that infants and children are especially vulnerable to the effects of lead poisoning,” Tongesayi said. “For infants and children, the daily exposure levels from eating the rice products analyzed in this study would be 30-60 times higher than the FDA’s provisional total tolerable intake (PTTI) levels. Asians consume more rice, and for these infants and children, exposures would be 60-120 times higher. For adults, the daily exposure levels were 20-40 times higher than the PTTI levels.”

The research was part of a symposium titled “Food and Its Environment: What Is In What We Eat?”

Tongesayi’s team, which is with Monmouth University in N.J., found that levels of lead in rice imported into the United States ranged from 6 to 12 milligrams/kilogram. From those numbers, they calculated the daily exposure levels for various populations and then made comparisons with the FDA’s PTTI levels for lead. They detected the highest amounts of lead in rice from Taiwan and China. Samples from the Czech Republic, Bhutan, Italy, India and Thailand had significantly high levels of lead as well. Analysis of rice samples from Pakistan, Brazil and other countries were still underway.

Because of the increase in rice imports into the United States, Tongesayi said that rice from other nations has made its way into a wide variety of grocery stores, large supermarket chains and restaurants, as well as ethnic specialty markets and restaurants.

China, a Major Player in GM Rice 

China leads the pack in rice breeding research, where hopes are high for new, insect resistant cultivars. China has approved its first strain of genetically modified rice for commercial production, potentially easing the way for other major producers to adopt the controversial technology.

The approval of the locally-developed rice, as well as China’s first GMO corn, shifts the global balance of power in food trade and could prompt other countries to follow suit, experts said.

It will also enable China, the world’s top producer and consumer of rice, to grow more GMO rice amid shrinking land and water resources.

The Chinese Ministry of Agriculture’s Biosafety Committee issued biosafety certificates to pest-resistant Bt rice with large-scale production to start in 2-3 years.

But Greenpeace called the move a “dangerous genetic experiment” and said it had previously exposed illegal cases of genetically engineered (GE) rice in China.

“If the Ministry of Agriculture cannot even control the illegal cultivation of GE rice, how can they manage the risks of large scale cultivation?” Lorena Luo, Greenpeace’s food and agriculture campaigner in China, asked in an emailed statement.

Everything from developing allergen-free rice to preventing vitamin deficiencies is being touted as the primary objective for genetic engineering projects which focus their efforts on altering rice’s nutritional value.

Rice with Human Genes

The first GM food crop containing human genes is also set to be approved for commercial production.

The laboratory-created rice produces some of the human proteins found in breast milk and saliva.

The rice is a major step in so-called Frankenstein Foods, the first mingling of human-origin genes and those from plants. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture has already signaled it plans to allow commercial cultivation.

The rice’s producers, California-based Ventria Bioscience, have been given preliminary approval to grow it on more than 3,000 acres in Kansas. The company plans to harvest the proteins and use them in drinks, desserts, yogurts and muesli bars and many other processed foods which will not be labelled as containing genetically modified foods once they reach the markets.

The news provoked horror among GM critics and consumer groups on both sides of the Atlantic.

GeneWatch UK, which monitors new GM foods, described it as “very disturbing”. Researcher Becky Price warned: “There are huge, huge health risks and people should rightly be concerned about this.”

Friends of the Earth campaigner Clare Oxborrow said: “Using food crops and fields as glorified drug factories is a very worrying development.

“If these pharmaceutical crops end up on consumers’ plates, the consequences for our health could be devastating.

“The biotech industry has already failed to prevent experimental GM rice contaminating the food chain.

“The Government must urge the U.S. to ban the production of drugs in food crops. It must also introduce tough measures to prevent illegal GM crops contaminating our food and ensure that biotech companies are liable for any damage their products cause.”

In the U.S., the Union of Concerned Scientists, a policy advocacy group, warned: “It is unwise to produce drugs in plants outdoors.

“There would be little control over the doses people might get exposed to, and some might be allergic to the proteins.”

The American Consumers Union and the Washington based Center for Food Safety also oppose Ventria’s plans.

As well as the contamination fears there are serious ethical concerns about such a fundamental interference with the building blocks of life.

Yet there is no legal means for Britain and Europe to ban such products on ethical grounds.

Imports would have to be accepted once they had gone through a scientific safety assessment.

Until now, plants with human-origin genes have been restricted to small test plots.

Ventria originally planned to grow the rice in southern Missouri but the brewer Anheuser-Busch, a huge buyer of rice, threatened to boycott the state amid concern over contamination and consumer reaction.

Now the USDA, saying the rice poses “virtually no risk”. has given preliminary approval for it to be grown in Kansas, which has no commercial rice farms.

Ventria will also use dedicated equipment, storage and processing facilities supposed to prevent seeds from mixing with other crops.

The rice could also be a huge money-spinner in the Western world, with parents being told it will help their children get over unpleasant stomach bugs more quickly.

“It’s the same tune over and over from the GM folks. They say it helps when in actuality it only destroys the natural balance of nature, the environment and human health, period!” said GM critic Gustavo Miller about Ventria’s initiatives.

Source:

preventdisease.com

http://worldtruth.tv

If you want this blog to get up with great information:
Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

Health Benefits of Juicing Raw Marijuana Leaves

If you want this blog to get up with great information:
Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

Contrary to popular belief, the marijuana plant is a whole lot more than just a psychoactive drug that “stoners” use to get high.

In raw form, marijuana leaves and buds are actually loaded with a non-psychoactive, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti-cancer nutrient compound known as cannabidiol (CBD) that is proving to be a miracle “superfood” capable of preventing and reversing a host of chronic illnesses.

Though you may not have heard much about it, the CBD found in the marijuana plant — marijuana is technically just a vegetable, by the way — is a highly medicinal substance with unique immune-regulating capabilities. Since the human body already contains a built-in endogenous cannabinoid system, complete with cannabinoid receptors, inputting CBD from marijuana can help normalize the body’s functional systems, including cell communication and proper immune function.

The way CBDs work is that they bridge the gap of neurotransmission in the central nervous system, including in the brain, by providing a two-way system of communication that completes a positive “feedback loop,” according to Dr. William Courtney, a medical marijuana expert and founder of Cannabis International. As opposed to a one-way transmission, which can promote chronic inflammation of healthy tissue, the unique two-way transmission system engaged by marijuana CBDs mimics the body’s own natural two-way communications system.

So individuals whose systems are compromised by autoimmune disorders, cellular dysfunction, chronic inflammation, cancer cells, and various other illnesses can derive a wide range of health-promoting benefits simply by consuming CBDs. And one of the best ways to obtain CBDs is to juice raw marijuana leaves and buds, according to Dr. Courtney, who currently runs a clinic in Luxembourg that provides raw cannabis medicinal services to patients in need.

“CBD works on receptors, and as it turns out, we have cannabinoids in our bodies, endogenous cannabinoids, that turn out to be very effective at regulating immune functions, nerve functions, bone functions,” says Dr. Ethan Russo, a Seattle, Wash.-area physician who is also a senior advisor to GW Pharmaceuticals, a British drug company that is utilizing CBDs in a new marijuana mouth spray known as Sativex.

“There’s a tendency to discount claims when something appears to be good for everything, but there’s a reason this is the case. The endogenous cannabinoid system acts as a modulator in fine-tuning a lot of these systems, and if something is deranged biochemically in a person’s body, it may well be that a cannabinoid system can bring things back into balance.”

Be sure to check out these amazing videos from Cannabis International that explain more about how raw cannabis, and specifically the CBDs found inside the plant, work to promote health and reverse disease:

While some U.S. states like California and Colorado are beginning to recognize and accept that marijuana has legitimate therapeutic value, the federal government continues to classify marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug with “no currently accepted medical use.” And as long as it remains classified in this way, most Americans will never have the opportunity to experience the healing potential of this vital superfood. But Cannabis International and other groups are continuing to educate the public about why marijuana is a food essential, and how legalizing it could change the world. To learn more, be sure to visit: cannabisinternational.org  Sources:

By Ethan A. Huff

 NaturalNews.com

washingtonpost.com http://worldtruth.tv  

If you want this blog to get up with great information:
Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

Nestlé Denies that Water is a Fundamental Human Right & Accused Of Exploiting Water Supplies

The current Chairman and former CEO of Nestlé, the largest producer of food products in the world, believes that the answer to global water issues is privatization. This statement is on record from the wonderful company that has peddled junk food in the Amazon, has invested money to thwart the labeling of GMO-filled products, has a disturbing health and ethics record for its infant formula, and has deployed a cyber army to monitor Internet criticism and shape discussions in social media.

In the small Pakistani community of Bhati Dilwan, a former village councilor says children are being sickened by filthy water. Who's to blame? He says it's bottled water-maker Nestlé, which dug a deep well that is depriving locals of potable water. “The water is not only very dirty, but the water level sank from 100 to 300 to 400 feet,” Dilwan says.

This is apparently the company we should trust to manage our water, despite the record of large bottling companies like Nestlé having a track record of creating shortages.

Large multinational beverage companies are usually given water-well privileges (and even tax breaks) over citizens because they create jobs, which is apparently more important to the local governments than water rights to other taxpaying citizens. These companies such as Coca Cola and Nestlé (which bottles suburban Michigan well-water and calls it Poland Spring) suck up millions of gallons of water, leaving the public to suffer with any shortages.

The testimony that was made of a former village councilor of Bhati Dilwan is a key moment in the new documentary film “Bottled Life” by Swiss filmmaker Urs Schnell and journalist Res Gehriger. The village councilor interviewed in the film says Nestlé refused the village’s request for clean water to be piped in.

The notoriously bad drinking water in Pakistan and elsewhere is the reason for the success of the Pure Life brand. A good 10 years ago, the Swiss food company began adding minerals to ground water and bottling it. Today, Pure Life Purified Water Enhanced With Minerals is the largest water brand in the world – “a jewel in our portfolio,” according to John Harris, head of Nestlé Waters.

But Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, believes that “access to water is not a public right.” Nor is it a human right. So if privatization is the answer, is this the company in which the public should place its trust?

Here is just one example, among many, of his company’s concern for the public thus far:

In view of the fact that every day more children die from drinking dirty water than AIDS, war, traffic accidents and malaria put together, Maude Barlow, a former UN chief adviser for water issues, states: “When a company like Nestlé comes along and says, Pure Life is the answer, we’re selling you your own ground water while nothing comes out of your faucets anymore or if it does it’s undrinkable – that’s more than irresponsible, that’s practically a criminal act.”

In response to questions put to it by Tages Anzeiger, Nestlé communicated in writing that it had built two water filtering facilities that were providing over 10,000 people in Pakistan’s Sheikhupura with clean drinking water. Construction of a further facility was planned for 2012. The company said they had also built two schools in Sheikhupura.

Nestlé is not the only company to create a huge business with big profit potential by bottling ground water -- Danone and Coca-Cola do it too. However, the way Nestlé goes about it, as depicted in the film, is in stark contrast to the image the company seeks to project. Nestlé likes to see itself as a global problem solver out not only for profits but to “create shared values.” In 2007, when Schnell and Gehriger began working on the movie, then Nestlé spokesman François-Xavier Perroud called it "the wrong film at the wrong time." Several times between 2007 and 2009 the company denined requests for interviews with company managers. It also refused to allow visits to bottling facilities.

The company’s present spokesperson, Melanie Kohli, told the Tages Anzeiger that Nestlé had reached the conclusion that the project would reflect a one-sided and unfair view of company activity and those who worked for Nestlé. “Consequently, we declined to work with the filmmakers. Our carefully considered decision was the right one at the time.”

racking the company's record, from Ethiopia to Nigeria

Undeterred, journalist Gehriger visited a refugee camp in Ethiopia where, in 2003, Nestlé had installed a water treatment facility for $750,000. Two years later, the company pulled out. Since then the facility has not been functioning properly, and water shortages have returned.

In Lagos, Nigeria, Gehriger discovered that families have to spend up to half their household budget on water in canisters, and that only those who can afford it drink Pure Life. Then there are the communities in the U.S. state of Maine who are fighting Nestlé because it pumps ground water and spring water in huge quantities – which it can do legally: whoever owns land can pump as much water as they like.

Nestlé pumps several million cubic meters annually and transports the water in tanker trucks to bottling plants. “They’re using our water to make profits, a liter doesn't even cost them a cent,” one woman complains. “They’re selling the water we use to flush toilets and wash our hands as expensive spring water,” says another. But since Nestlé brings the communities tax dollars, officials welcome the company, which is supported by an armada of lawyers and PR people.

Why? Because if the community had fresh water piped in, it would deprive Nestlé of its lucrative market in water bottled under the Pure Life brand.

Source:

worldcrunch.com

www.globalresearch.ca

http://worldtruth.tv