Archive for Food/Recalls

Judge Rules GMOs Violate Environmental Law

For those of us wondering how bad the untested genetically modified food experiment is going to get before it gets any better, a ray of hope was just offered. A San Francisco judge, the very honorable, Judge Jeffrey White just ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture`s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service violated environmental law because of inadequate environmental testing of genetically modified sugar beets. He ruled that the agency failed to see if the genetically altered beets would eventually share their funky pesticide proof genes with other crops. Judge White noted that pollen from sugar beets can be blown long distances and pollinate other crops, including table beets and chard.

White wrote, “The potential elimination of farmers` choice to grow nongenetically engineered crops, or consumers` choice to eat nongenetically engineered food … has a significant effect on the human environment.”

The judge ordered the federal agency to produce an environmental impact statement after taking a hard look at the issue. A lesser look by the agency found that the sharing of genetically altered pollen was no cause for concern.

This is the second blow for Monsanto and according the Associated Press, a “similar ruling in 2007 forced a ban on planting Roundup Ready alfalfa until a re-examination was done.” That environmental impact statement has yet to be completed, so it effectively halted the growth and sale of GMO alfalfa.

About half of the sugar beets used in the United States are currently Monsanto`s genetically modified variety and the judge didn`t rule about the harvest of the current crop.

If you haven`t been already, it`s wise to avoid sugar for a while to make sure you`re not consuming genetically modified sugar beets.

Genetically modified foods have been linked to smaller, less developed brains, livers and testicles. GMOs have been found to enlarge other tissues, including the pancreas and intestines. They`ve been known to atrophy the liver, while causing structural changes in the stomach and intestines. GMOs have additionally been linked to infertility and allergies. Here`s more: http://www.saynotogmos.org/paper.pdf.

All of the health problems associated with consuming genetically modified foods made the news in Europe years ago, when genetically modified crops were new. The citizens of Europe rebelled, which is why genetically altered foods are currently banned, or mostly labeled, in Europe.

In the U.S., the news wasn`t covered by mainstream outlets. As a consequence genetically modified foods are not labeled and consumers remain largely unaware. Genetically modified ingredients are available in the large majority of processed foods, and in the U.S. it`s actually illegal for manufacturers to label GMO products, as GMO products.

U.S. officials have been cited as saying that such labeling would “confuse consumers,” and it`s widely known that the large majority of consumers don`t want to eat genetically modified foods. Their logic has been: if consumers knew which foods were genetically modified, they would avoid them and thereby make the wrong choice. The official said to have explained the government’s logic at an international Codex meeting later denied doing so.

Organic farmers, food safety advocates and conservation groups brought the lawsuit. According to Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff, on Oct. 30 they will ask the judge for an injunction to ban new plantings until the environmental impact statement is complete.

An American Sugar Beet Growers Association spokesman said the association is going to fight for the right to grow genetically modified sugar beets. It wasn`t disclosed if, or how much, funding the association receives from Monsanto.

Genetically modified sugar beets are currently grown in eleven states and on 1.1 million acres.

http://www.naturalnews.com/027177_food_GMOs_GMO.html

Canada’s rejection of peanuts led to recall

*Nice inspection process. Sigh.*

The first sign of trouble for Peanut Corp. of America, the company blamed for a salmonella outbreak that has killed eight people in the United States and led to a massive product recall, was a tainted shipment of chopped peanuts that arrived in Canada last spring.

A customer in Canada rejected the peanuts, an act that may have saved lives here, and prompted officials with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to turn their attention to sanitary conditions in the Blakely, Ga., peanut plant at the centre of the outbreak.

It would seem to be a victory for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, proof that its system of inspection works. But the CFIA can’t explain why or how it succeeded.

The CFIA presumes the shipment was allowed across the Canadian border, because peanuts are not considered a high-risk product, and are not entered into the agency’s import control computer tracking system.

The CFIA could not say who received the shipment, because it doesn’t keep such records, but believes the buyer rejected the product after opening it and discovering it was unfit for consumption.

The purchaser likely sent the shipment back to the manufacturer, and the U.S. FDA inspected the shipment when it arrived last April at a border crossing at Alexandria Bay, N.Y., across from the Thousand Islands in Southeastern Ontario.

The FDA report said it found a “filthy, putrid or decomposed substance,” later identified as metal fragments.

But why did the FDA intercept the package? Was it warned by the CFIA? The agency can’t say. A spokeswoman said it is extremely rare for peanuts to go from Canada to the United States, and that may have prompted the inspection.

Canada’s rejection of the shipment has prompted criticism of the FDA from U.S. legislators, who wonder how it was that inspectors did not descend on the plant until months after Canada raised a red flag.

It was only in June that inspectors were sent to the plant, and then only to look for the source of the metal fragments, not salmonella.

Meanwhile, a private lab hired by the company to analyze the seized shipment deemed it fit for export. The FDA rejected those findings, and after months of back and forth, the shipment was destroyed.

Not long after, the first signs of a salmonella outbreak were spotted in the United States. Most of the more than 550 people affected fell ill after Oct. 1. Only one person in Canada, a man from New Brunswick, has reported illness related to the outbreak, and it’s believed he ate contaminated food in the United States.

On Monday, U.S. President Barack Obama said he is unhappy with the FDA’s response to the outbreak.

“I think that the FDA has not been able to catch some of these things as quickly as I expect them to,” Mr. Obama said.

More than 800 consumer products were recalled in the United States, making it one of the largest recalls in recent memory, and more are expected.

In Canada, the recall of various peanut products has now grown to 120 items. Another 19 products were added to the recall list late Tuesday. Among them is Kawartha Dairy Heavenly Hash Ice Cream in 1.5 and 11.4-litre sizes. Also included are another 17 American products under Cinch, Detour, Oh Yeah!, Disney, Sinbad Sweets and no-name brands.

Major peanut butter brands sold in Canada are still safe to eat, according to the CFIA.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090204.wsalmonella04/BNStory/International/home