First “Ag-Gag” Prosecution: Utah Woman Filmed a Slaughterhouse from the Public Street‏

Do you have a right to know where that steak on your plate came from? Should it be legal to photograph chicken farms and dairy cows?
Big Agriculture says you don’t and it shouldn't  Armies of Big Ag lobbyists are pushing for new state-level laws across the country to keep us all in the dark. Less restrictive versions have been law in some states since the 1980s, but the meat industry has ratcheted up a radical new campaign.

The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists, according to a document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act back in 2011.

This wave of “ag-gag” bills will criminalize whistle-blowers  investigators, and journalists who expose animal welfare abuses at factory farms and slaughterhouses. Ten states considered “ag-gag” bills last year, and Iowa, Missouri, and Utah approved them.

“Ag-gag” bills are being introduced around the country in an attempt to censor whistle-blowers  investigators, and journalists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and slaughterhouses.
Investigations by groups like the Humane Society, Mercy for Animals, and Compassion Over Killing have exposed shocking animal cruelty and consumer health dangers in the food industry. They have led to the largest meat recall in US history, criminal charges, and international media exposure.
Rather than put a stop to these abuses, corporations are trying to criminalize the whistle-blowers who expose them.

 

Amy Meyer wanted to see the slaughterhouse for herself. She had heard that anyone passing by could view the animals, so she drove to Dale Smith Meatpacking Company in Draper City, Utah, and from the side of the road she could see through the barbed-wire fence. Piles of horns littered the property. Cows struggled with workers who tried to lead them into a building. And one scene in particular made her stop.
“A live cow who appeared to be sick or injured being carried away from the building in a tractor,” Meyer told me, “as though she were nothing more than rubble.”

As she witnessed this, Meyer did what most of us would in the age of smart phones and YouTube: she recorded.
When the slaughterhouse manager came outside and told her to stop, she replied that she was on the public easement and had the right to film. When police arrived, she said told them the same thing. According to the police report, the manager said she was trespassing and crossed over the barbed-wire fence, but the officer noted “there was no damage to the fence in my observation.”

Meyer was allowed to leave. She later found out she was being prosecuted under the state’s new “ag-gag” law.
This is the first prosecution in the country under one of these laws, which are designed to silence undercover investigators who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms. The legislation is a direct response to a series of shocking investigations by groups like the Humane Society, Mercy for Animals, and Compassion Over Killing that have led to plant closures, public outrage, and criminal charges against workers.
Even the most sweeping ag-gag bills, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council model legislation, don’t explicitly target filming from a roadside. But Nebraska, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Vermont are all considering bills similar to the Utah law right now.
Pennsylvania’s bill criminalizes anyone who “records an image of, or sound from, the agricultural operation” or who “uploads, downloads, transfers or otherwise sends” the footage using the Internet.

 

North Carolina’s bill doesn't specifically mention factory farms or slaughterhouses: it is called the “Commerce Protection Act,” and it includes investigations of any industry. It was introduced on the same day a fifth employee of Butterball pleaded guilty to animal cruelty after an undercover investigation showed workers beating turkeys.
Tennessee’s bill has already passed and is awaiting signature from the governor. In response to calls for a veto from the Humane Society and Carrie Underwood, one state representative compared undercover investigations to rape and sex-trafficking.
California’s ag-gag bill recently failed, after a massive public backlash. One newspaper editorial said “the cattlemen have committed the worst PR gaffe since New Coke.” The bill was a response to an undercover investigation by the Humane Society that showed “downer” cows, too sick to move, being pushed by tractors (much like what Amy Meyer recorded in Utah). It led to the largest meat recall in U.S. history.

The public backlash against these bills, including recent editorials by the New York Times and Washington Post, has relied  on hypothetical examples of how they could be used. The AFL-CIO and Teamsters say they could put workers at risk. The ASPCA says they could shut down lawful investigations by animal protection groups. The National Press Photographers Association says they could wrap up journalists.
The first ag-gag prosecution should be a warning that these aren’t hypothetical concerns. These bills have one purpose: keep consumers in the dark. Rather than respond to video footage of animal cruelty with across-the-board reforms, the industry is trying to turn off the cameras.

It’s telling that the owner of the slaughterhouse Amy Meyer filmed happens to be Darrell H. Smith, the town mayor. (Mayor Smith, the meatpacking company, and the local prosecutor did not return phone calls for comment). If that’s shocking to you, it shouldn't be. In Iowa, for example, the nation’s first ag-gag law was sponsored by Rep. Annette Sweeney, who is the former director of the Iowa Angus Association.

In Utah, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. John Mathis, called undercover investigators “animal rights terrorists” and said video recordings of animal abuse are “propaganda.” In his opening remarks at a legislative hearing on the ag-gag bill, Mathis said: “It’s fun to see my good ag friends in this committee… all my good friends are here.” Ag-gag supporters couldn't be any more transparent in their financial motivations for censorship.

It was prescient that, as the Utah bill was being considered, the Utah Sentencing Commission warned that it could be used against anyone who merely takes a photograph of a farm or slaughterhouse. At the time, Rep. Greg Hughes of Draper replied: “Who would really pursue that in terms of prosecution?” Now, the first ag-gag prosecution is for precisely that, in his own district.
Most people won’t ever find themselves in the position of Amy Meyer, of course. Few of us actively seek out information about how our food is produced. (Do you know the location of a factory farm, if you wanted to?) The animal products just arrive at the supermarket, without investigation or thought.

With ag-gag bills, the industry is trying to keep it that way. These bills are not just about animal activists from national organizations going undercover. They are about people like Amy Meyer, who have seen how animals are being treated, and who want you to see what they have seen.
Most importantly, ag-gag bills are about you — the millions of Americans who might see this footage, be sickened by it, and demand a change.

Source:

www.greenisthenewred.com

http://worldtruth.tv

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

“American Dream”: Food loaded into Dumpsters while Hundreds of Hungry Americans Restrained by Police

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

Hundreds of poor people waiting outside of a closed grocery store for the possibility of getting the remaining food is not the picture of the “American Dream.” Yet on March 23, outside the Laney Walker Supermarket in Augusta, Ga., that is exactly what happened.

Residents filled the parking lot with bags and baskets hoping to get some of the baby food, canned goods, noodles and other non-perishables. But a local church never came to pick up the food, as the store owner prior to the eviction said they had arranged. By the time the people showed up for the food, what was left inside the premises—as with any eviction—came into the ownership of the property holder, SunTrust Bank.

The bank ordered the food to be loaded into dumpsters and hauled to a landfill instead of distributed. The people that gathered had to be restrained by police as they saw perfectly good food destroyed. Local Sheriff Richard Roundtree told the news “a potential for a riot was extremely high.”

“People got children out here that are hungry, thirsty,” local resident Robertstine Lambert told Fox54 in Augusta. “Why throw it away when you could be issuing it out?”

SunTrust bank is trying to confuse the issue and not take direct responsibility for their actions. Their media relations officer Mike McCoy, stated, “We are working with store suppliers as well as law enforcement to dispose of the remaining contents of the store and secure the building.” Yet he also said that the food never belonged to SunTrust Bank.

There is no need to sugar coat what happened. Teresa Russell, chief deputy of the Marshal’s Office in Richmond County, said the owner of the building ordered that the food be taken to the landfill. Some people even followed the truck to the landfill and were still turned away.

In Richmond County, there are about 20 evictions per day, and the area surrounding the supermarket is one of the poorest in the state. According to the last available data, the poverty rate is 41 percent. Many people in that parking lot probably knew all too well how evictions work, and were in desperate need of the food assistance.This story is not some bizarre exception. It reeks of the truth of capitalism and is strikingly similar to the H&M scandal that broke in 2010 when clothes were being shredded before being thrown away, so as to make sure the value of the merchandise was unaffected.

In a capitalist society, the motive behind the production of food is not to feed people, housing is not made to give them shelter, clothing is not made to keep them warm, and health care is not offered primarily to keep people healthy. All of these things, which are and should be viewed as basic rights, are nothing other than commodities—to be bought and sold—from which to make a profit. If a profit cannot be made, usually due to overproduction in relation to the market, the commodity is considered useless by the capitalist and destroyed.

In this case, it appears the bank simply did not care. For the banks that have made their profits through evictions and foreclosures, it is little surprise that they showed no remorse in leaving people staring in disbelief, with empty bags, as they watched the food that could be feeding their families dumped into a landfill instead.

Source:

www.globalresearch.ca

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

The REAL Source of Cavities and Gum Disease

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

 

 

Our modern stereotype is that – until recently – people were plagued with rotting teeth, cavities and gum disease.

But the truth is that prehistoric people had much better oral health than we do today.

As NPR reports:

Prehistoric humans didn’t have toothbrushes. They didn’t have floss or toothpaste, and they certainly didn’t have Listerine. Yet somehow, their mouths were a lot healthier than ours are today.

“Hunter-gatherers had really good teeth,” says Alan Cooper, director of the Australian Center for Ancient DNA. “[But] as soon as you get to farming populations, you see this massive change. Huge amounts of gum disease. And cavities start cropping up.”

And thousands of years later, we’re still waging, and often losing, our war against oral disease.

Our changing diets are largely to blame.

In a study published in the latest Nature Genetics, Cooper and his research team looked at calcified plaque on ancient teeth from 34 prehistoric human skeletons. What they found was that as our diets changed over time — shifting from meat, vegetables and nuts to carbohydrates and sugar — so too did the composition of bacteria in our mouths.

However, the researchers found that as prehistoric humans transitioned from hunting and gathering to farming, certain types of disease-causing bacteria that were particularly efficient at using carbohydrates started to win out over other types of “friendly” bacteria in human mouths. The addition of processed flour and sugar during the Industrial Revolution only made matters worse.

“What you’ve really created is an ecosystem which is very low in diversity and full of opportunistic pathogens that have jumped in to utilize the resources which are now free,” Cooper says.

And that’s a problem, because the dominance of harmful bacteria means that our mouths are basically in a constant state of disease.

“You’re walking around with a permanent immune response, which is not a good thing,” says Cooper. “It causes problems all over the place.”

According to Cooper, bacteria make up approximately 90 percent of the cells in our bodies. He believes that we focus too much on ourselves and not enough on this so-called microbiome.

“We brush our teeth and we floss, and we think that we’ve got good oral hygiene. But [we're] completely failing to deal with the underlying problem,” he says. “Ten years from now, I think we’re going to find that the whole microbiome is a key part of what you get monitored for and treated for.“

While this seems counter-intuitive at first, it makes sense after a little reflection. After all, we evolved as hunters and gatherers. We haven’t had time to adapt – in an evolutionary times frame – to a life of farming … let alone processed foods.

No wonder – according to the New York Times:

More than 75% of American adults have some form of gum disease.

The science of healthy internal bugs is in its infancy. As Live Science notes:

“The concept of a probiotic to help reestablish our baseline microbiota after an antibiotic is a good concept,” [microbiologist Martin Blaser of the NYU School of Medicine] told LiveScience. “But the idea that, of all thousand species in our bodies, taking a single species that comes from cow or cheese is naïve.” Current probiotics are very well marketed, Blaser said, but there’s not much benefit. He does think medicine will one day develop probiotics that will be used to treat illness, but as of now, “it’s a very young field,” he said.

Ingesting too many antibiotics has also been linked to obesity, as it kills – often permanently – helpful intestinal bacteria and hypertension. Probiotics – which replace healthy intestinal bacteria – can promote weight loss, at least in people who don’t have a thriving community of natural intestinal flora.

Indeed, a healthy microbiome is also important for mental health:

Live Science reports:

Researchers have increasingly begun to suspect the gut was somehow linked with the brain. For instance, bowel disorders seem linked with stress-related psychiatric disorders such as anxiety and depression in people.

To learn more, scientists experimented with mice by feeding them a broth containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus JB-1. This species naturally lives in our gut, and scientists are exploring whether strains of it can be used as “probiotics” to improve our health. They discovered these rodents displayed significantly less behavior linked with stress, anxiety and depression than mice fed plain broth. Bacteria-fed mice also had significantly lower levels of the stress hormone corticosterone in response to stressful situations such as mazes.

“By affecting gut bacteria, you can have very robust and quite broad-spectrum effects on brain chemistry and behavior,” researcher John Cryan, a neuroscientist at University College Cork in Ireland, told LiveScience.

“Without overstating things, this does open up the concept that we could develop therapies that can treat psychiatric disorders by targeting the gut,” Cryan added. “You could take a yogurt with a probiotic in it instead of an antidepressant.”

The investigators found that one GABA receptor component was present in higher levels in bacteria-fed mice in parts of the brain where it is normally lowered during depression. In addition, several GABA receptor components were reduced in parts of the brain where they are normally increased in stressed or anxious animals.

Next, the researchers severed the vagus nerve, which helps alert the central nervous system to changes in the gastrointestinal tract. They found the bacteria-induced effects on behavior and GABA receptors were diminished, suggesting this nerve is the pathway by which changes in the gut can influence the brain.

Vagal nerve stimulations have been used at times to treat depression resistant to other therapies, but “that’s a surgical technique,” Cryan said. “By targeting the gut with probiotics, we could indirectly target the vagus nerve without surgery.”

And see this.

Many native cultures ate a lot of fermented foods containing healthy bacteria. Think yogurt, miso and Inuit fermented seal blubber (gross, we know …)

Given that the modern diet contains less fermented foods, and that antibiotics have killed off some of our healthy intestinal flora, probiotics – sold in health food stores – are an important preventative measure against depression.

So it should come as no surprise that probiotics can help our oral health, as shown by scientific studies published in the American Journal of Dentistry, European Journal of Dentistry, and elsewhere.

In a couple of years, we will be able to get the right probiotics to kill the bad bugs in our mouth without destroying the good guys like antibiotics do.

In the meantime, good oral hygiene – conscientious tooth brushing and flossing – is important. Indeed, an overwhelming number of scientific studies conclude that cavity levels are falling worldwide … even in countries which don’t fluoridate water.

World Health Organization Data (2004) -
Tooth Decay Trends (12 year olds) in Fluoridated vs. Unfluoridated Countries:

This is due to increased education about the importance of oral hygiene.

In addition, we should cut out refined flour and refined sugar. As Live Science notes:

Cooper suggests that one way to help return your microbiome to a healthier, more balanced state might be to cut out all of those processed carbs and start eating like our ancestors.

Cranberry juice contains a chemical that blocks cavity-causing bacteria from sticking to teeth. Drinking some unsweetened cranberry juice during the day can reduce cavities.

Finally, brushing with baking soda (or a toothpaste containing baking soda) is safe, and helps to reduce plaque … even in hard-to-reach areas.

Source:

www.globalresearch.ca

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

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

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

Nestlé is Trying to Patent the Fennel Flower

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

 

Nigella sativa — more commonly known as fennel flower — has been used as a cure-all remedy for over a thousand years. It treats everything from vomiting to fevers to skin diseases, and has been widely available in impoverished communities across the Middle East and Asia.

Swiss food company Nestle is seeking a patent on the use of the seed (botanical name) Nigella sativa to prevent food allergies, claiming the plant seed and extract when they are used as a food ingredient or drug.

After the patent fight over turmeric and basmati, it is black cumin, known as kala jeera or kalaunji, and widely used in traditional Ayurvedic medicines, that is now the subject of a patent application that may concern India.

Commonly known as habbat al-barakah in Arabic, and frequently called "black seed&", "black cumin&" or "fennel flower&" in English, Nigella sativa is an ancient food and medicinal crop. It is part of the five grains that are collectively called panch phoren and used widely in Bengal cuisine as well as in many Ayurvedic medicines.

The patent application of the Swiss company on the use of the seeds, traditional uses of Nigella sativa is pending in the European patent Office in US, Japan and China since 2009, according to Nestle SA a subsidiary of the company.

In a paper published in 2012, Nestlé scientists claimed to “discover” what much of the world has known for millennia: that Nigella sativa extract could be used for “nutritional interventions in humans with food allergy”.

The company's patent claim is based on a study conducted and published by it in PLOS July 2012, called "Nigella Sativa seed extract alleviates symptoms of allergic diarrhea in mice involving opioid receptors". The authors are from the Nestle Research center in Lausanne Switzerland. It says that the objective of the study on mice was to tackle "food related allergic reactions" which "represent a significant burden for patients and their families and cause considerable health care costs."

 The study finds the black caraway seed extracts effective but does not acknowledge traditional knowledge about them.

 The corporate spokesperson for Nestle SA Philippe Aeschlimann wrote to Business Standard that the patent application was filed in 2009 at the European Patent Office, in the US, Japan and China. ''It claims the use of an opioid receptor stimulating compound for the preparation of a composition to treat or prevent food allergy,'' he said."The compound can be a thymoquinone containing extract, such as an extract from Nigella sativa (black cumin), or from other plants such as Eupatorium ayapana (now Ayapana triplinervis, or water hemp, an American plant from the daisy family), Satureja montana (winter savory, a European plant from the mints family), or the Thymus genus (plants from the mints family, found in Europe, North Africa and Asia)."

Instead of creating an artificial substitute, or fighting to make sure the remedy was widely available, Nestlé is attempting to create a nigella sativa monopoly and gain the ability to sue anyone using it without Nestlé’s permission. Nestlé has filed patent applications — which are currently pending — around the world.

Prior to Nestlé’s outlandish patent claim, researchers in developing nations such as Egypt and Pakistan had already published studies on the same curative powers Nestlé is claiming as its own. And Nestlé has done this before — in 2011, it tried to claim credit for using cow’s milk as a laxative, despite the fact that such knowledge had been in Indian medical texts for a thousand years.

We know Nestlé  doesn't care about ethics. After all, this is the corporation that poisoned its milk with melamine, purchases cocoa from plantations that use child slave labor, and launched a breast milk substitute campaign in the 1970s that contributed to the suffering and deaths of thousands of babies from poor communities.

But we also know that Nestlé is sensitive to public outcry, and that it’s been beaten at the patent game before. If we act fast, we can put enough pressure on Nestlé to get it to drop its patent plans before they harm anyone — but if we want any chance at affecting Nestlé’s decision, we have to speak out now!

The research on Nigella Sativa was not inspired by any kind of traditional knowledge but focused on the compound which is found in this plant and other plants.

 When asked if it did not go against the prevailing knowledge of such used traditionally in India and elsewhere, Nestle    said:

"Nestle recognizes the importance of biodiversity, and respects the sovereign rights of nations over their natural resources, including genetic (biological) resources. We fully support the principle of fair access and benefit-sharing as described in the Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992 and the more recent Nagoya Protocol of 2010."

Tell Nestlé: Stop trying to patent a natural cure

Source:

globalresearch.ca

business-standard.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

Trader Joe’s Accused Of Covering Up Sugar Content

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

 

Trader Joe's has become the latest firm to be hit with a class action lawsuit alleging it "conceals" added sugar by listing it on pack as "evaporated cane juice".

A lawsuit files by Pratt & Associates-which sued Chobani on similar grounds last year-says Tader Joe;s uses the term "evaporated cane juice" instead of the more accurate terms "dried sugar cane syrup" or "sugar" on several private label products from Greek-style yougurt to soy milk, despite the fact that the Food & Drug Administration has repeatedly told firms not to use it.

Plaintiffs Amy Gitson, Christine Vodicka and Deborah Ross, all Bay Area residents, sued because, according to the lawsuit, the "evaporated cane juice" and "organic evaporated cane juice" listed as ingredients in Trader Joe's brand yogurt and soy milk were actually just normal sugar.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has banned the term "evaporated cane juice" as a synonym for sugar on packaged foods, but the use of the term has become increasingly common over the past few years.

The plaintiffs were misled by the defendant's use of the term "milk" in connection with its soy beverages.

The suit also accuses Trader Joe's of falsely claiming that several of its products contain no artificial flavors, ingredients or preservatives. The complaint cites the brand's French Village Strawberry Nonfat Yogurt, which is tinted with beet juice, and Dark Chocolate Peanut Butter Salted Caramel Truffles, which contain one of a class of chemical preservatives called tocopherols, as examples of mislabeled products.
Trader Joe's spokeswoman Alison Mochizuici told The Huffington Post the company cannot comment on pending litigation.
Gitson, Vodicka and Ross are asking the court to grant them, and similarly aggrieved parties across the country, monetary compensation for what they characterize as fraud on the part of Trader Joe's. They also want Trader Joe's to change its labels.

They're represented by Pierce Gore, a consumer affairs attorney who has been on a legal crusade against food mislabeling since April 2012, when he filed nine lawsuits (on behalf of different clients) based on erroneous labels. Over the past 11 months, he's filed similar suits against 32 companies selling mislabeled foods, including six of the 20 biggest food companies in the world: Kraft, Nestle, Frito-Lay, Hershey's, Dole and ConAgra. Last August, The New York Times retail reporter Stephanie Strom compared the campaign to the war on tobacco companies in the mid-90s -- a war Gore not-so-coincidentally helped wage.

Speaking by phone from his San Jose, Calif., law firm Pratt & Associates, Gore told The Huffington Post that he started the fight after looking into the FDA's regulations on packaged food labeling. He said he figured out that a huge number of companies were in violation.
"The labeling on packaged food is just a sea of lies," he said. "It's difficult to describe the breadth of the problem. American consumers are being systematically lied to about the foods they eat."
Gore said he also quickly figured out that the FDA didn't have the resources to go after mislabelers. "We're trying to enforce laws for which there is no other enforcement mechanism," he said.

He also realized that the laws in California, unlike those in many other states, allowed private individuals to sue companies over false food-labeling claims. So he started casting about for potential plaintiffs -- who weren't hard to find in health-conscious San Francisco. (Many, including the plaintiffs in the Trader Joe's case, are friends or acquaintances of lawyers at Pratt & Associates.) California law doesn't require plaintiffs to have been physically injured by a company to sue it; they need only to prove "economic injury."

"We just have to prove that people didn't get what they paid for. It is illegal to distribute, sell or even possess misbranded food in California," Gore explained. "Our plaintiffs bought products that weren't legal to sell."
Many of the suits, like the one against Trader Joe's, target companies' use of the term "evaporated cane juice." But others take aim at nebulous health claims like "no sugar added" and "all natural" which lend foods and beverages the air of healthfulness without signifying anything. In November, for example, one of Gore's clients sued Whole Foods for labeling its in-house brand 365 Everyday Value Cola as "all natural" even though it contains caramel flavoring, citric acid and carbon dioxide.

In each of the 32 cases, Gore's plaintiffs are asking to be compensated in the form of a partial or total refund for the mislabeled products they bought. They are also asking the companies being sued to change their labels. Gore said that he'd noticed, over the past year, that several packaged food manufacturers had removed the term "evaporated cane juice" from their packages, which he chalked up to fear of a lawsuit.
None of the cases have been decided, but five of the defendants unsuccessfully filed motions to dismiss their suits.
"We haven't lost yet," he said. "And we're not going to, because the law is pretty clear. We allege not only consumer deception, but actual regulatory violations. That's the difference between us and previous labeling suits. It's a lot harder to research the regulation -- but we feel like we've built a better mousetrap."

Source:

www.huffingtonpost.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