Food Additives and Packaging are linked with disease, particularly dangerous for children

[Justplain]

This is further evidence that, as we all know, processed and packaged food in our grocery stores is poisoned. Although it has taken the academic world far too long to recognize this danger, now consumer advocates are demanding that chemicals and additives to food and food packaging should be proven to not be hazardous before use is permitted. Firstly, imho, this proof should have to be undertaken at independent test facilities that are held to the highest ethical standards. Secondly, this condition should also be applied to other factors that affect food production, such as pesticides, herbicides, hormones, genetic modification, etc. As word of advice, the best thing an independent person can do, again imho, is buy fresh and organic.

A U.S. association of pediatric experts warns there is increasing evidence that chemicals used to preserve, colour and package may contribute to disease and disability and children are particularly vulnerable. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the regulatory system in the United States needs to change to protect against. An environmental group says the same is true in Canada.

Products used before proven to be safe

“Canada unfortunately is in the same boat as the U.S. and other countries around the world when it comes to allowing chemicals to be added to products before proving that they are safe,” says Muhannad Malas, toxics program manager at Environmental Defence Canada. “That’s a very troubling practice…something that needs to change.”

The AAP has expressed concerns about bisphenols which often line metal cans or are used in plastic containers, phthalates found in tubing used in food production, perfluoroalkyl chemicals which seal packaging against grease, perchlorate also found in packaging as well as food colours and nitrates and nitrites which preserve processed meats.

Consumers have a right to know, says toxics specialist

The AAP has recommendations which Malas says Canada should apply: “When it comes to…chemicals that we know there’s strong evidence about their hazard…we need to reverse the burden of proof. We need industry to prove that they are safe before they’re allowed to be added to products.” This echoes a recommendation made in 2017 by a parliamentary committee reviewing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Malas says the government should also require labelling. “If a company is using something like BPA in a food can, consumers have the right to know that these chemicals are there.”

Linked conditions, chronic illnesses are costly

Studies have linked some of these chemicals to endocrine disruptions which can accelerate the beginning of puberty or reduce fertility. They are also linked to obesity, some types of cancer as well as immune and thyroid problems.

“Exposure to these chemicals could be linked to a whole set of conditions and chronic illnesses that are costing our society quite a lot in terms of health costs, but also economic costs,” says Malas. “Health care is expensive and that is a cost that we need to consider.”


http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2018/07/25/chemicals-foods-children-disease-disability-canada/

[onawah]

Banned pharmaceutical drugs discovered in the U.S. meat supply, USDA decides to do nothing
https://www.naturalhealth365.com/banned-pharmaceutical-drugs-2699.html
September 14, 2018
(This is a bit off-topic, but close enough, hopefully--perhaps a change of thread name would be good. Another recent issue re meat in the news recently is that meat labeled as from US sources are actually imported. )
"(Naturalhealth365) A new article in Consumer Reports has blown the lid off an ongoing food safety scandal – and revealed that traces of banned and restricted pharmaceutical drugs have been found in beef, poultry and pork headed for supermarkets and supper tables throughout the United States.

The drug residues include ketamine – a veterinary anesthetic with hallucinogenic effects – phenylbutazone – an anti-inflammatory medication considered too risky to human health to use – and chloramphenicol, a potent antibiotic associated with a life-threatening form of anemia.

Meanwhile, U.S. federal agencies meant to ensure food safety appear to be turning a blind eye.

Consumer Reports scientists analyzed data from tests performed on thousands of meat samples
To obtain their findings, the scientists examined United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) tests that had been performed on nearly 6,000 random samples of beef, poultry and pork.

The team also examined government documents and conducted interviews with government officials, doctors, industry groups and farmers.

The test results and documents were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act as part of a lawsuit brought by food safety organizations against Sanderson Farms, the third largest poultry producer in the nation. The lawsuit alleges that the company’s claims of producing “natural” and “antibiotic-free” poultry are misleading.

All of the scientists were employed by Consumers Union – the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine. And, Consumers Union is an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to unbiased research and consumer protection.

Bombshell findings on potentially dangerous pharmaceutical drugs met with shrugs from the USDA
Shockingly, 2.6 percent of the samples of poultry, beef and pork contained chloramphenicol in amounts that exceeded the cutoff levels established by Consumer Report’s team of scientists.

Chloramphenicol at any level can cause life-threatening aplastic anemia – the inability to produce sufficient new blood cells – in 1 out of 10,000 people.

In addition, 1.6 percent of the samples contained phenylbutazone, a drug no longer used in humans because of its “double whammy” of potential health hazards. Not only is phenylbutazone associated with aplastic anemia as well, but it is a possible carcinogen.

Traces of ketamine, an anesthetic with hallucinogenic properties, were also found. Sometimes abused as a “party drug,” ketamine is currently restricted by the government.

To be clear: all three drugs are prohibited from use in animals meant for human consumption. But, no one is certain how these prohibited drugs are even ending up in the meat supply.

Some industry experts theorize that contamination could occur through runoff from excrement into soil and water – which then enters drinking water and feed given to livestock.

Intentional or accidental misuse – in which producers use the drugs to accelerate growth – could also be a factor, as could mislabeled or counterfeit drugs.

While the concentration of drug residue liable to cause harm in humans is ‘unknown,’ recent studies indicate that long-term exposure to even low levels could raise the risk of cancer, antibiotic resistance, and harm to developing fetuses.

To date, the response of the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (or FSIS) has been non-existent.

USDA denies the validity of its own data
Emilio Esteban, Ph.D., chief scientist at FSIS, claims the Consumer Reports’ team’s findings are the result of “unconfirmed” screening tests – and says they should be discounted.

By the way, the scientists used the USDA’s own data to reach their conclusions!

In many cases, Dr. Esteban said, the results were below levels considered to be of concern by FSIS – and didn’t meet agency criteria that would necessitate follow-up testing.

The cut-off levels – also known as minimum levels of applicability – set by the FSIS are significantly higher than those utilized by the Consumer Reports team – and much higher than those used by other government agencies. In fact, many natural health advocates and food safety experts – including Consumers Union – have urged FSIS to use more widely accepted scientific standards.

Scholars, scientists and natural health advocates call for action
Consumer Reports’ Director of Food and Safety Research and Testing, James E. Rogers, PhD, expressed his disappointment at the lack of response from FSIS.

“You would hope the results would prompt the agency to look into why these drugs may be present, what risks they could pose, and what could be done to protect consumers,” commented Dr. Rogers.

Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., a scholar with the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, agrees.

Dr. Benbrook noted that the findings should have resulted in “aggressive” action to figure out how the drugs are ending up in meat.

And Andrew Gunther – executive director of A Greener World, a non-profit organization that promotes sustainable farming – called the drugs “potentially very dangerous.” He professed to be “floored” by the alarming results, saying that the contaminants appeared in more samples, and at higher levels, than he would have expected.

FSIS has taken little action, as agency officials downplay results
The responsibility for enforcing food safety regulations and assigning penalties lies with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

But Consumer Reports points out that the agency has issued very few citations, to date, for drugs that shouldn’t be in meat in the first place. (Meat producers are more likely to be cited for exceeding residue limits for approved drugs).

And FDA penalties – such as warning letters, injunctions, and the placing of repeat violators on a public list – amount to little more than a “slap on the wrist.”

Lest there be any doubt regarding the ineffectuality of the current penalties, Parthapratim Basu, D.V.M. – former Chief Public Health Veterinarian at FSIS – offers up an infuriating example.

Do you think meat producers really care about FDA warning letters?
According to Dr. Basu, many meat producers seem to view a warning letter from the FDA with a distinct lack of alarm. Some even consider it a point of pride – and utilize the letters to “cover holes in the barn.”

Not only has FSIS failed to ensure that meat intended for human consumption is free of drugs, but the agency continues to downplay and minimize the actual presence of these contaminants.

A FSIS spokesperson quoted by Consumer Reports characterizes the data as “preliminary,” “unconfirmed” and “misleading,” and announced that it did not represent any public health risk to consumers.

And, an official at the National Chicken Council says conclusions based on preliminary results “would amount to fearmongering and needless alarm.”

There you have it: the discovery of the true amounts of potentially dangerous drug residues in the American meat supply is being met with stalling, hesitation and outright denial. In light of this (I’m sure you would agree), the decision to choose meat from organic farms – which are required by federal law to raise their livestock without drugs or other chemicals – should be a no-brainer.

Sources for this article include:
Consumer Reports"

[grapevine]

You've Been Lied to About This

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI5a45kmvr0&ab_channel=Dr.EricBergDC (7:49)
You’ve been lied to about your food for a very long time! There are dangerous ingredients in food that aren’t required to be listed on the label. Find out if you’re consuming toxic chemicals like hexane and hidden sugar without your knowledge.

0:00 Introduction: Hidden, dangerous ingredients in food
1:15 Incidental additives
2:12 The dangers of hexane
2:30 Soy protein isolates
3:29 Hidden sugar products
5:53 How to spot dangerous ingredients in food

Did you know that the “rounding rule” allows manufacturers to hide ingredients in your food if it’s less than 500 mg per serving size? There are also over 200 different words for sugar! These misleading practices could mean you’re consuming dangerous ingredients without knowing.

Incidental additives are ingredients that have a function that’s not related to texture, flavor, or a preservative. If these ingredients are less than 5% of the finished product, they don’t have to list it on the label.

Maltodextrin is a common incidental ingredient. It’s a carbohydrate that acts more like sugar in the body and has a glycemic index of 180 compared to table sugar, which is only 74.

Hexane is one of the most dangerous ingredients in food. Its residue is often found in products containing soy protein isolates, which are commonly added to bars, veggie burgers, and plant-based products. Hexane is a chemical solvent used to extract this protein from the soybean.

The CDC classifies hexane as a neurotoxin, and the EPA considers it hazardous air pollution. However, no regulatory body measures the amount of hexane in food.

Iodine turns blue when combined with starch. Add a drop or two of iodine to a glass of water, and watch products with hidden starch turn blue or purple when you mix them in!

[TrumanCash]

"Edible Electronics"

"Graphene on toast, clothing and cardboard has tasty potential."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaaHLu77pQc

Rice University scientists who introduced laser-induced graphene (LIG) have enhanced their technique to produce what may become a new class of edible electronics.
The Rice lab of chemist James Tour, which once turned Girl Scout cookies into graphene, is investigating ways to write graphene patterns onto food and other materials with a laser.
The process is an extension of the Tour lab's contention that anything with the proper carbon content can be turned into graphene. In recent years, the lab has developed and expanded upon its method to make graphene foam by using a commercial laser to transform the top layer of an inexpensive polymer film.

More info: https://news2.rice.edu/2018/02/13/graphene-on-toast-anyone/

[TrumanCash]

Check your food and medicines for Graphene Oxide!! Use a magnet


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLtBPp5QqS4

[Inversion]

In 1950 kids were getting sick from candy that contained Orange No. 1 at Halloween then it was banned. Red No. 3 causes cancer in lab rats and has been linked to behavioral problems in children. This video was uploaded to YT the day before Halloween.

consumerreports (https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-additives/red-dye-3-banned-in-cosmetics-but-still-allowed-in-food-a3467381365/)

10/30/24 (8:03)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq9dhQIoDw8