Tag Archive: FDA


Food Poisoning Bulletin

lifefit-recallLifeFit dietary supplement is being recalled because it contains an undeclared controlled substance that was banned in 2010 for safety reasons. Consumers who have purchased this product should not use it as it poses a serious health threat.

Bacai, LifeFit’s distrbuter, is voluntarily recalling the product sold in plastic bottles of 30 softgels with the lot number 13165. The lot number is located next to the expiration date May 2017. It was distributed worldwide to wholesalers, retailers, and through the internet.

An analysis by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found that the product contains sibutramine, which causes substantial increase in blood pressure and/or pulse rate. This can pose a  in significant risk for patients with a history of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, arrhythmias, or stroke. The drug can also cause a life-threatening situation if taken with other medications.

 

…..

Meridia (sibutramine): Market Withdrawal Due to Risk of Serious Cardiovascular Events

[Posted 10/08/2010]

AUDIENCE: Primary Care, Consumers

ISSUE: Abbott Laboratories and FDA notified healthcare professionals and patients about the voluntary withdrawal of Meridia (sibutramine), an obesity drug, from the U.S. market because of clinical trial data indicating an increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

BACKGROUND: Meridia was approved November 1997 for weight loss and maintenance of weight loss in obese people, as well as in certain overweight people with other risks for heart disease. The approval was based on clinical data showing that more people receiving sibutramine lost at least 5 percent of their body weight than people on placebo who relied on diet and exercise alone. FDA has now requested market withdrawal after reviewing data from the Sibutramine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (SCOUT). SCOUT is part of a postmarket requirement to look at cardiovascular safety of sibutramine after the European approval of the drug. The trial demonstrated a 16 percent increase in the risk of serious heart events, including non-fatal heart attack, non-fatal stroke, the need to be resuscitated once the heart stopped, and death, in a group of patients given sibutramine compared with another given placebo. There was a small difference in weight loss between the placebo group and the group that received sibutramine.

RECOMMENDATION: Physicians are advised to stop prescribing Meridia to their patients, and patients should stop taking this medication. Patients should talk to their health care provider about alternative weight loss and weight loss maintenance programs.

 

[10/08/2010 - Drug Safety Communication - FDA]
[10/08/2010 - Questions and Answers - FDA]
[10/08/2010 - News Release - FDA]

Previous MedWatch Alert:

[01/21/2010 - Meridia (sibutramine hydrochloride): Follow-Up to an Early Communication about an Ongoing Safety Review]

 

…..

Enhanced by Zemanta
About these ads

The Center for Food Safety is warning the public that the EPA is set to approve the direct spraying of the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) on Dow Chemical’s genetically engineered corn and soybeans. That chemical is one-half of the compound called “Agent Orange” used in Vietnam to destroy foliage; it caused cancer among Vietnam veterans. EPA will render a decision after a 30 day comment period. Dow developed the GE crops, known as “Enlist”, to withstand high doses of 2,4-D (which it also sells) after its disastrous Roundup Ready crops created glyphosate-resistant superweeds.

Crop DustingYou can sign a petition opposing this action at CFS web site called “Dow Watch”. CFS opposes this move by the EPA because they state, “wide scale use of herbicides in tandem with GE crops has led to an epidemic of herbicide resistant weeds, and the next step in the chemical arms race is Dow Chemical’s 2,4-D, a chemical linked to major health problems including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, endocrine disruption, and reproductive problems.”

 

Read More Here

 

…..

​EPA advances approval of powerful weed killer for Dow’s ‘Agent Orange’ GMO crops

Published time: May 02, 2014 00:56
Edited time: May 03, 2014 14:35

Reuters / Doug Wilson / USDA<br />
Photo / Handout<br />
” width=”416″ height=”234″ /></p>
<p class=Reuters / Doug Wilson / USDA Photo / Handout

The US Environmental Protection Agency has revealed a proposal for mass use of Dow Chemical’s herbicide 2,4-D on the company’s genetically-engineered corn and soybeans. The GE crops were developed to withstand several herbicides, including 2,4-D.

Dow would be allowed to sell the herbicide if the EPA approves it following a 30-day public comment period.

The 2,4-D chemical, combined with glyphosate, makes up the herbicide Enlist Duo. 2,4-D also makes up half of the toxic mix in the now infamous ‘Agent Orange,’ used by the United States during the Vietnam War, which is thought to have resulted in the deaths of an estimated 400,000 people and birth defects in 500,000 others.

Dow’s genetically-engineered corn and soybeans – known as Enlist – have received preliminary approval from the US Department of Agriculture. Should Enlist crops win ultimate authorization, the USDA said that would increase the annual use of 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) in the United States from 26 million pounds per year to possibly 176 million pounds.

The crops are designed to withstand high doses of glyphosate – brought to market by biotech giant Monsanto as their Roundup weed killer – and 2,4-D. Dow’s corn and soybeans thus earned the derogatory name ‘Agent Orange’ crops by opponents of both the highly-toxic chemical mix and the controversial use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in large-scale agriculture.

 

Read More Here

…..

Enhanced by Zemanta

Pet treats found contaminated with heavy metals – Health Ranger releases shocking data on lead, mercury and cadmium in dog and cat treats

 

treats

Monday, April 21, 2014
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) My food science research in the Natural News Forensic Food Labs has turned up yet another alarming discovery… and this time, it’s about pet treats that may be poisoning your dogs and cats with toxic heavy metals.

Over the last several months, I’ve been testing popular brands of pet treats sold by retailers like Amazon.com, and what I found is downright alarming:

• An astonishing 1.8 ppm of lead in Mundy Rawhide Gourmet Dog Treats made by a company called Cadet. The treats are made in China and labeled “NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.”

• A startling 6 ppm of cadmium found in “Red Shrimp” reptile treats made by Zoo Med.

• A shocking level of mercury — over 0.5 ppm found in “Ocean Whitefish” cat treats made by PureBites and labeled “100% natural” and “made in the USA.”

• Over 1.5 ppm lead found in “Natural Rawhide Rings” dog treats from a company called PetSafe. The product package says “Protect. Teach. Love.” and is made in Taiwan.

See the full results right now for over 16 products at the Natural News Forensic Food Labs results page.

All results were achieved via ICP-MS laboratory testing that I conducted myself, using EPA-approved methodology variations. The Natural News Forensic Food Lab is in the process of achieving ISO 17025 accreditation.

Watch out! You may be poisoning your pet

What these results show is that high levels of toxic heavy metals are commonly found in pet treats. Even worse, these heavy metals are invisible to the human eye, and because they aren’t labeled on products, there’s no way to know how much lead, mercury, cadmium or arsenic you may be unintentionally feeding to your pet.

The picture on the right shows chew sticks that contain alarmingly high levels of lead, but you don’t see the lead in the photo, do you?

Shockingly, manufacturers never disclose heavy metals content on product labels, and retailers almost never test for heavy metals. To my knowledge, Natural News Store is the only retailer in the world that tests everything we sell for heavy metals. Amazon.com never tests what it sells, and don’t expect other retailers to, either.

See the PetSafe natural rawhide rings on the left? They’re made in Taiwan from rawhide, sorbitol and potassium sorbate. But they also contain over 1.5 ppm of lead.

Just to give you an idea of what that really means, just one rawhide ring weighing 8 grams would expose your dog to over 24 times the daily lead limit set by California Proposition 65. That’s almost a month’s worth of lead in a single pet treat.

See the full results right now at the Natural News Forensic Food Labs results page, where more than 16 pet treats are detailed.

Contaminated pet treats can kill your favorite dog or cat

Contaminated pet treats can kill your dogs or cats. The FDA openly warns about this on its website(1), saying:

Since 2007, FDA has become aware of an increasing number of illnesses in pets associated with the consumption of jerky pet treats. As of September 24, 2013, FDA has received approximately 3000 reports of pet illnesses which may be related to consumption of the jerky treats. Most of the reports involve jerky products sourced from China. The majority of the complaints involve dogs, but cats also have been affected. The reports involve more than 3600 dogs, 10 cats and include more than 580 deaths.

Over the years, thousands of family pets have been killed by contaminated pet treats, and more deaths will occur until this industry is required to meet stringent quality standards.

Sadly, the FDA still has no limits on heavy metals in pet treats or pet food, so a company can legally manufacture pet treats containing almost any level of heavy metal toxins while legally selling that product at Amazon.com or your favorite pet store.

The USDA, similarly, has no limits on heavy metals in certified organic pet food. So even “organic” pet foods and treats can contain extremely toxic levels of heavy metals while being certified organic by the U.S. government.

And while heavily-contaminated pet treats can kill your pet in a matter of hours or days, pet treats with sub-acute levels of heavy metals can still cause long-term chronic poisoning over time, where the heavy metals build up with each cumulative exposure.

Are there any pet treats with low heavy metals?

Yes! In fact, my laboratory research was able to verify that the “Real Meat Healthy Gourmet Dog & Puppy Treats” product made by the Real Meat Company(2) was remarkably low in heavy metals, registering zero cadmium, mercury and arsenic while showing only a tiny trace of lead.

 

Read More Here

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is Your Brain On Aspartame

This Is Your Brain On Aspartame

Controversy continues to rage over the artificial sweetener aspartame.  Since it was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1981, aspartame has made its way into more than 6,000 food items.

 

The FDA claims aspartame is safe but has set an acceptable daily intake of no more than 50 mg per kilogram of body weight.  In other words, an adult weighing 165 pounds should consume no more than 3,750 mg of aspartame a day.  A can of diet soda typically contains about 180 mg of the chemical.  That means the FDA’s “safe” limit equates to about 21 cans of diet soda per day.

But is any level of aspartame really safe?

For decades researchers have claimed aspartame is responsible for headache, memory loss, mood changes, and depression.  Consumer complaints back them up.  Over 75% of adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA concern aspartame. Reported problems include headaches, migraines, vision problems, tinnitus, depression, joint pain, insomnia, heart palpitations, and muscle spasms.

Recently researchers from the University of North Dakota wanted to test the safe limits of aspartame over a short period of time.  They found that at just one half of the FDA’s “safe” acceptable daily intake, aspartame caused serious neurobehavioral changes including cognitive impairment, irritable moods, and depression.[i]

 

Read More Here

Enhanced by Zemanta

Shellfish Irradiation To Reduce Food Poisoning Gets FDA Nod

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of ionizing radiation to kill foodborne pathogens on crustacean shellfish and extend their shelf life. The April 11 decision is in response to a food additive petition submitted by the National Fisheries Institute 13 years ago.

irradiated-symbolThe decision will allow processors of crustaceans including crab, shrimp, lobster, crayfish, and prawns use small amounts of ionizing radiation to reduce, but not eliminate, dangerous foodborne bacteria such as E.coli, Vibrio and Listeria.  The maximum permitted dose is 6.0 kiloGray.

The rule covers shellfish sold raw, frozen, shelled, dried, cooked and partially cooked. It also covers crustaceans processed with spices or a small number of other ingredients.

 

Read More Here

 

…..

Forbes

Will Irradiated Burgers Turn You Radioactive? The Truth About Food Irradiation

As prolific and commonplace as they are in our lives, “foodstuffs” and “food processes” still confound us. I recently received a query in my inbox; the sender was anxious over some irradiated burgers he had bought. Would they harm him? Would they turn him radioactive? Upon reflection, it seemed ripe fodder for a Forbes post.

I noticed a symbol on a package of burgers that I bought, and saw that it meant the beef had been irradiated. I didn’t eat them. What does this mean to have food irradiated, what does involve, is it bad for me, and were the burgers radioactive?

Radiation at the best of times doesn’t elicit warm, fuzzy feelings. When it gets anywhere near our food supply, we’re prone to panic, hysteria even. But, with irradiated food, where the results are comparable to pasteurization, there’s absolutely no need for frenzy, or to let perfectly fine fare go to waste.

While conventional pasteurization depends on heat, irradiation relies on energy generated by ionizing radiation. This can come from either gamma rays from a radioactive element like cobalt-60, electron beam technology or x-rays. Higher doses of irradiation can kill disease-causing microorganisms like E.coli and Salmonella – this would have been the case with your burgers. Lower doses can replace other forms of fumigation to eradicate insects such as fruit flies and weevils from produce, and extend shelf life by retarding spoilage and natural processes such as ripening and sprouting.

All irradiated food is required by law to carry an internationally recognized symbol, known as a radura — usually green and resembling a circular flower flanked by two leaves within a broken circle. The packaging must also bear a statement indicating the food has been irradiated.

The radura should embolden you to tuck in rather than to throw out your burgers. Irradiation is by no means intended as a substitute for scrupulous hygiene standards, but it does provide that extra measure of safety. The off-putting reality is that burgers and other ground meat products are prone to contamination being frequently made from off-cuts and trimmings that may have been in contact with fecal matter. If a single cut of meat, say a steak or a chicken breast, is contaminated with E.coli or Salmonella, the pathogens harbor only on the surface of the meat being unable to permeate to the interior. Searing the outside over high heat will kill off any nasties. With a burger however, surface bacteria can become mixed into the ground meat. The risk of food poisoning then is inordinately higher despite a well-browned crust  – especially if you like your burgers pink and well below 160F in the middle.

 

Read More Here
…..

US News & World Report

The Basics on the Foodfight Over Irradiation

Should you look for the “radura” symbol?

Video: Healthful Eating Recipes

Video: Healthful Eating Recipes

By Sept. 5, 2008 SHARE

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval late last month of pathogen-zapping irradiation technology for fresh spinach and iceberg lettuce has reignited a long simmering debate about how to improve the safety of food. The news comes as the latest food safety scare—the salmonella outbreak probably caused by hot peppers—winds down after infecting 1,442 people across 43 states and killing two of them. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that foodborne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths each year in the United States.

Given the less than spotless state of the nation’s food supply, is bombarding a product with radiation to kill microorganisms such as E. coli and salmonella a good thing? Or should you avoid irradiated food, as some groups urge? U.S. News asked food safety experts some key questions to help you decide.

What is irradiation?
The process involves treating a food with a short burst of high energy radiation that damages the DNA of bacteria. Though the FDA has only just approved the technique for use with fresh spinach and iceberg lettuce, the technology is not new. In fact, the agency has conducted safety tests on the technology for more than 40 years, and its use on meat has been approved since 1997. Spinach and iceberg lettuce are the first types of produce approved for irradiation at levels intense enough to kill pathogens. (Lower doses have been approved for other purposes, such as controlling insect infestations and slowing ripening produce’s maturation.) Why do some food processors want to irradiate food?
Groups that represent food processors, such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the American Meat Institute, want to irradiate certain products to kill problematic pathogens and to extend shelf life. Research shows that irradiation destroys 99.9 percent of common foodborne pathogens. However, advocacy groups such as Food & Water Watch and the Organic Consumers Association oppose the irradiation of food on the grounds that it doesn’t address the root causes of outbreaks, such as unsanitary conditions at farms and food processing plants, and reduces the nutritional quality, taste, and texture of food. Why has the Food and Drug Administration decided to approve the technology for use with spinach and lettuce now?

 

Read More Here

…..

FDA Expands Irradiation of Food Supply; Harmonizing with Codex Alimentarius

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

Demonstrating the lack of concern held by regulatory agencies for public safety or public opinion as well as the increasing attempts to become compliant with Codex Alimentarius regulations, the FDA has recently expanded the amount of ionized radiation that can be used to treat unrefrigerated raw meat.

As reported by Food Safety News, the two new policies decided upon by the FDA were issued in response to two petitions filed in 1999 by the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

While the previous policy was that only refrigerated or frozen meats could be irradiated, the new rule allows for the irradiation of unrefrigerated raw meat. The second rule change allows for increasing the dose of ionizing radiation in poultry from 3.0 kGY to 4.5 kGy.

Although a period for public comment is always set aside for regulatory agency decisions regarding potential changes to policy, the FDA promptly ignored the many comments it received from individuals all over the country as well as consumer advocacy groups which requested the denial of the two FSIS petitions.

The response from the FDA was that all of these comments, made by individuals and by groups such as Public Citizen and the Center for Food Safety, “were of a general nature” and “did not contain any substantive information that could be used in a safety evaluation of irradiated poultry.” This statement was made regarding both the poultry irradiation rule and the passage of a new meat temperature rule.

Predictably, the FDA has defended its decision by circular logic that flies in the face of science and common sense. The agency is claiming that “irradiating unrefrigerated meat was not found to increase meat’s toxicity, change the food’s nutritional properties or increase the likelihood of certain bacteria thriving on meat; therefore FDA has determined that this is a safe application for the process.”

Of course, while the FDA claims that irradiation is not found to increase toxicity or change nutritional properties, the very reason that the FDA has jurisdiction over food irradiation to begin with is because the process of irradiation can do just these very things. Even the FDA admits[1] that, because irradiation “can affect the characteristics of the food,” it is considered a “food additive.” Thus, because food additives fall under the purview of the FDA, irradiation is regulated (or not) by the agency.

By allowing for higher doses of irradiation in food, the FDA is knowingly complicit in covering up unsanitary food production practices by major corporations as well as accepting the inclusion of clearly harmful material (i.e. radiation) into the food supply. Keep in mind, irradiation is mostly used by corporations in order to cover up deplorable manufacturing conditions and dangerous food contamination.

 

Read More Here

…..

Food Irradiation Supports Agribusiness, Harms Health

Irradiation Lab Mouse Food Irradiation Supports Agribusiness, Harms Health

 

by Heidi Stevenson
Gaia-Health.com

Agribusiness is polluting and destroying the food on which we depend . Irradiation destroys nutrients and creates poisons. Despite claims, it’s largely hidden from us. It exists for the benefit of Agribiz, not for our health.

Food irradiation exists only because Agribusiness exists. It isn’t to support your health. As we’ve seen recently with outbreaks of food-borne disease, modern food production is innately unhealthy. It utilizes monoculture, long term storage, and chemicals. None of these are good for us, but all create enormous profits for a money-hungry industry. The need to sterilize foods on a mass scale simply did not exist until Agribusiness changed the nature of what we eat.

Modern food processing and distribution is highly mechanized, with tremendous pressure placed on employees to simply push things through and money carefully spent to grease the palms of those who might have called a stop to the madness. Agribusiness considers it cost-effective to irradiate foods, which sterilizes them and significantly increases their shelf life.

The efforts to utilize irradiation cover the spectrum from propaganda to hiding it from the public. We’re told that food irradiation is safe, effective, and doesn’t affect food quality. Let’s call these claims the myths that they are and examine them.

Myth: Irradiation is effective.

Fact: This is a very slippery claim. Yes, it does kill many infectious organisms, in particular, bacteria. However, it does not protect against toxic elements, such as the neurotoxin produced by Clostridium botulinum, the bacterium that causes botulism. Killing the bacteria can create a sense of security, though the actual disease cause is still present.

Irradiation’s effectiveness against viruses is limited, so anthrax and hepatitis may still survive after irradiation. Prions, the cause of mad cow disease, are untouched by it.

Reinfestation of food is not prevented by irradiation. In fact, it holds the potential of allowing worse contamination. By eliminating most infectious organisms, beneficial ones are also destroyed. This results in there being nothing to prevent reinfection, allowing opportunistic bacteria and viruses free rein in irradiated foods.

Factory farms are not healthy places. Pigs are kept for their entire lives in horrifically unsanitary conditions, with their droppings and urine left uncleared where they fall through the cages, so they rot and release constant toxic fumes. Irradiation is a means to avoid dealing with this inhumane and unhealthy situation.

Urine, feces, pus, tumors, and vomit are not removed by irradiation.

Myth: Irradiation is safe.

Fact: This is simply false. As documented in Food Irradiation, Cats, and Doublespeak: Researchers Reinvent Reality, it’s well known to cause neurological damage in cats.

Irradiation generates furans in food. Carbofuran is a member of this class. It’s the poison, which is banned in Europe and severely curtailed in the US, that FMC sells under the name of Furadan, as reported in PsychoCorp #1—FMC Product Banned in U.S. Kills Lions in Africa. All furans are considered carcinogenic. Fruits, in particular, are affected by the generation of furans.

Public Citizen reports laboratory animals fed irradiated foods suffered “a myriad of serious health problems in laboratory animals that ate irradiated foods, including premature death, fatal internal bleeding, a rare form of cancer, stillbirths and other reproductive problems, mutations and other genetic damage, organ malfunctions, stunted growth and vitamin deficiencies.”

The growth of aflatoxin, implicated in liver cancer in southern states, is stimulated by irradiation. The World Health Organization considers aflatoxin to be a significant health risk. Unique Radiolytic Products (URPs) are produced by irradiation. These chemical compounds have not been well studied, but one group of them, cyclobutanones, have been found to promote cancer and genetic damage in rats, and to cause genetic and cellular damage in both rats and humans. Cyclobutanones are radiation by-products of palmitic acid, which is present in nearly all foods.

Other chemicals known to cause cancer and birth defects are formed by irradiation, including benzene, toluene, and methyl ethyl ketone.

Free radicals are formed by irradiation. These are the targets of antioxidants, supplements that are very popular now. Consider that some antioxidants, such as vitamin A, are destroyed by irradiation. So irradiation holds a double whammy against health—destroying the antioxidants that might help resolve the chemicals it creates.

The journal, Nutrition and Cancer reported in 2002 that colon cancer can be caused by a chemical compound found only in irradiated food.

Myth: Irradiation doesn’t affect food quality.

Fact: There is extensive documentation for the loss of key nutrients from irradiation of food. The Center for Food Safety reports that anywhere from 2-95% of the vitamins can be lost. They cite losses of as much as 80% of vitamin A in eggs, 95% of vitamin A and lutein in green beans, 50% of vitamin A and lutein in broccoli, and 40% of beta carotene in orange juice. Irradiation is also reported to destroy the B, C, E, and K vitamins.

 

Read More Here

…..

 

Additional Sources on Irradiation of food and it’s byproducts

Pubmed Data : Nutr Cancer. 2002;44(2):189-91. PMID: 12734067
Study Type : Animal Study

Pubmed Data : J Food Prot. 2008 Jun;71(6):1270-2. PMID: 18592759
Study Type : Animal Study

Pubmed Data : Poult Sci. 2001 Jan ;80(1):105-8. PMID: 11214329
Study Type : Animal Study

Pubmed Data : Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Sep 19 ;51C:46-52. Epub 2012 Sep 19. PMID: 23000443
Study Type : Animal Study

Pubmed Data : Neurosci Lett. 2006 Sep 25;405(3):172-4. Epub 2006 Jul 26. PMID: 12380747
Study Type : Animal Study
Additional Links

Additional Keywords : Gamma Irradiation : CK(9) : AC(6)

Pubmed Data : Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2012 ;76(5):900-5. Epub 2012 May 7. PMID: 22738956
Study Type : Plant Study

Pubmed Data : PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2010 Sep-Oct;64(5):432-5. PMID: 21502047
Study Type : Review

Pubmed Data : J Agric Food Chem. 2005 Oct 5;53(20):7826-31. PMID: 16190637
Study Type : In Vitro Study
Additional Links

Additional Keywords : Gamma Irradiation : CK(9) : AC(6)
Problem Substances : Furan : CK(11) : AC(2)
Adverse Pharmacological Actions : Carcinogenic : CK(936) : AC(130)

Pubmed Data : J Sci Food Agric. 2011 Mar 15;91(4):634-49. Epub 2010 Dec 23. PMID: 21302317
Study Type : In Vitro Study
Additional Links


Pubmed Data : J Food Sci. 2011 Sep ;76(7):C1056-61. PMID: 22417543
Study Type : Plant Study
Additional Links

Pharmacological Actions : Antioxidants : CK(3723) : AC(1318)
Adverse Pharmacological Actions : Oxidant : CK(104) : AC(37)

Pubmed Data : Poult Sci. 2011 Nov ;90(11):2578-83. PMID: 22010244
Study Type : Review

Pubmed Data : Food Chem Toxicol. 2007 Dec;45(12):2581-91. Epub 2007 Jun 28. PMID: 17766022
Study Type : In Vitro Study
Additional Links

Additional Keywords : Gamma Irradiation : CK(9) : AC(6)

Pubmed Data : Mutat Res. 2006 Feb 22;594(1-2):10-9. Epub 2005 Sep 8. PMID: 16153665
Study Type : In Vitro Study

 

…..

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

File:Seafood dish.jpg

Seafood Dish
Source

Transferred from fr.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Korrigan using CommonsHelper.

Author

  Original uploader was Elapied at fr.wikipedia

Permission
(Reusing this file)CC-BY-SA FR; CC-BY-SA-2.0-FR.

…..

Food Poisoning Bulletin

Consumer Groups Sue FDA Over Mercury in Seafood

Earthjustice, along with Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Mercury Policy Project, are suing the FDA for “failing to respond to a July 2011 petition in which the groups asked the FDA to give consumers clear, accurate, and accessible information about toxic mercury in the seafood they eat.” At this time, the latest recommendations for pregnant women eating shellfish are to avoid certain species, and eat up to 12 ounces a week of other fish. Those recommendations were set in 2004.

seafoodThe lawsuit asks for a court-ordered deadline for the FDA to respond to its request that signs be required at seafood counters and on seafood labels to let consumers know how much mercury is in the fish they buy. The FDA had 180 days, three years ago, to respond to the petition, but did not.

Mercury content in seafood is a concern and has been for years. Airborne mercury comes from coal-fired power plants and gold mining. It falls into the ocean, where it is converted into methyl mercury, which is a neurotoxin. That concentrates in fish and shellfish. Methylmercury exposure is linked to lowered IQ, learning disabilities, and impaired cognitive functioning.

Read More Here

…..

Activists sue FDA over mercury disclosures in seafood

Consumer protection and environmental advocacy groups filed al lawsuit Monday, accusing the Food and Drug Administration of failing to act in response to calls for more public information about mercury levels in seafood.

The legal action follows a petition filed by the group Earthjustice three years ago, urging the FDA to require signs at supermarket seafood counters to telling shoppers about the amounts of mercury in fish.

The petition, filed on behalf of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Mercury Policy Project, also calls for labels on packaged seafood.

The groups say FDA officials had, under the agency’s own rules, 180 days to respond to the petition but ignored the deadline in violation of federal law.

Read More Here

…..

Enhanced by Zemanta

Breaking News: FDA’s Sneak Attempt to Ban Another B Vitamin

March 11, 2014

Vitamins Close-upYou can’t live without this vitamin. But the FDA wants to reserve the natural form for monopoly drug companies, leaving only the synthetic form for supplements. Urgent Action Alert!

 

The FDA has just released a new 109-page guidance on the revision of nutrition and supplement labels. (You can read more about the implications of the new labeling rules in our other article this week.)

 

On page 69, the agency slipped in two little paragraphs that could risk the health of millions of people who desperately need folate. It’s a sneak attack so quiet and unobtrusive that few people will even realize it’s there.

 

According to the guidance, the word “folate” will be banned from the Supplement Fact labels—only the term “folic acid” will be allowed.

 

Folate is the naturally occurring form of the water-soluble vitamin B9. It is found in foods such as black-eyed peas, chickpeas and other beans, lentils, spinach, turnip greens, asparagus, avocado, and broccoli, but is also available as a supplement.

 

The human body needs folate to synthesize and repair its DNA. It’s especially important during the kind of rapid cell division and growth seen in infancy and pregnancy. Children and adults both require folate to produce healthy red blood cells and prevent anemia among many other vital functions.

 

Folic acid, on the other hand, is synthetically produced, and refers to just one member of the folate group: pteroylmonoglutamic acid. While folic acid occurs only rarely in whole foods, it’s extremely stable, which is why it’s widely used in dietary supplements and to fortify processed foods.

 

The important thing to remember is that folic acid is not itself biologically active, though for most people the liver can convert it to the folate we need. Most, however, does not mean all. It’s estimated that 30% to 40% of the population can’t efficiently convert synthetic folic acid into folate.

 

In other words, about a third of the human population has two potential problems: a deficiency in folate (because it is hard to get enough from a diet full of processed foods), and possibly even an excess of folic acid (because their body can’t metabolize what could become an overabundance of folic acid present in “fortified” foods):

 

  • According to Dr. Jonathan V. Wright, folate deficiency is one of the most dangerous medical conditions, leading to Alzheimer’s and other brain diseases. If pregnant women are deficient in it, it can also lead to spina bifida and other neural tube birth defects in their children.

 

 

Note that the FDA is not exactly banning the inclusion of folate and requiring the inclusion of folic acid in supplements. As usual, it is playing a much more subtle insider’s game. It is simply banning supplement producers from using the word folate on their labels and conversely only allowing the word folic acid on their labels. But it would of course be fraudulent to put folic acid on your label and then use something else. The FDA understands that perfectly.

 

So on what grounds is the agency banning the use of the word folate on the label? Believe it or not, it is arguing that folate can only be found in “conventional” (whole or minimally processed) foods.

 

Before we examine this absurd claim, we must first explain that limiting a folate claim to food would not prevent drug companies from becoming the only source of folate outside of food. Drug companies don’t care what a chemical is called so long as they can create a high priced monopoly in it. Ironically, the FDA’s position that folate can only be used to describe what is in food would still turn folate over to the drug companies—so long as supplement labels can only use the term folic acid.

 

So what about the agency’s assertion that “folate” can only be found in food? “Folate” is actually a term for a whole B vitamin group. The term “folate” we see on dietary supplement labels refers to “dietary folates,” members of the folate group that can be naturally found in foods. Folinic acid (5-FTHF), calcium methylfolate, and various other tetrahydrofolates can be found in dietary supplements. Many brands feature dietary folate.[1] It would be completely inaccurate and misleading to refer to these dietary folates as “folic acid.” Legally, it would be fraudulent.

 

Why did the FDA do this? One can only guess. But it would not be surprising if it eventually turns out to be a blatant attempt to reserve for drug companies the use of dietary folates. After all, B vitamins are not only essential for life. They are also proven therapeutic agents. Drug company research programs have been coming up short for years; new drug therapeutic agents are in very short supply.

 

Moreover, the drug company Merck already holds patents on Metafolin, which the body recognizes as a bioavailable dietary folate. Metafolin is licensed by dietary supplement companies for some of their products.

 

If, according to FDA “logic,” dietary supplements can’t contain folate like Metafolin, it would only be available from whole foods…or drugs, and only from drugs in higher doses. Since Merck would have exclusivity for a Metafolin “drug,” our guess is that they would make billions. And other forms of patentable folate could then follow.

 

Sound unlikely? It’s not—both forms of fish oil and vitamin D have already been turned into patented drugs. Imagine if competition from supplemental forms of fish oil or D could be wiped out at one stroke by saying no supplement label could use the term!

 

Read More Here

Enhanced by Zemanta

Food Safety News

After settling a dispute about final rule deadlines for the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) earlier this week, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) has filed another lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – this time over food additives.

The suit seeks to vacate FDA’s 1997 proposed rule on substances generally recognized as safe (GRAS). The rule replaces the traditional petitioning process for a manufacturer seeking GRAS status for an additive with a “procedure whereby any person may notify FDA of a determination that a particular use of a substance is GRAS.”

CFS wants the agency to return to the traditional process by which manufacturers formally petition FDA to approve a new food additive as GRAS based on published studies.

FDA’s website acknowledges that the agency began accepting GRAS notices in 1998 even though the procedure was not yet final (and has yet to be finalized) and states that “the agency is evaluating whether each submitted notice provides a sufficient basis for a GRAS determination and whether information in the notice or otherwise available to FDA raises issues that lead the agency to question whether use of the substance is GRAS.”

 

Read More Here

Enhanced by Zemanta
ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

A New Study Shows Real Costs of Toxins

 

  • February 15, 2014

 

 

A New Study Shows Real Costs of Toxins

In environmental health circles, 2014 is being heralded as the year America’s 40-year-old chemical regulations will at long last be reformed. One typical complaint heard in the struggle to pass the Chemical Safety Improvement Act is that new regulations will cost companies too much money and the country too many lost jobs. This familiar tune ignores the other side of the economic coin. As in: What are the costs of doing nothing?

 

According to new study on BPA exposures in the U.S., they’re quite high. The study, authored by Healthy Child Healthy World board member Leonardo Trasande, an associate professor of pediatrics, environmental medicine, and health policy at the New York University School of Medicine, finds that the social costs of BPA-related obesity and heart disease were nearly $3 billion in 2008. It contends that removing the chemical from the linings of food and beverage cans would yield $1.74 billion in annual economic benefits. The study’s calculations were conservative and didn’t account for the many other health issues to which BPA is suspected of contributing, like cancer, reproductive damage, and behavioral disorders, which means these figures could be many billions of dollars higher in reality.

 

Read More Here

Enhanced by Zemanta

Food Poisoning Bulletin

 

According to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, fresh cheese curd has been recalled in the northern part of the state because it tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes. No reported cases of illness have been discovered at this time.

RecallThe cheese is Cuajada en Terron (Fresh Cheese Curd), sold at the Mega Mart, a retail store at 8328 Shopper’s Square in Manassas. The product was sold in clear, unlabeled plastic bags in the retail cheese display cooler. No lot or date coding information is on the package.

 

Read More Here

Enhanced by Zemanta
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,573 other followers