Reply With Quote
America is known for growing for maximum profit, synthetic tasetless ty food full of chemicals. It is not about quality it is only about the bottom line profit.
It's No Yolk: Mexicans Cope With Egg Shortage, Price es
The first shipments from the U.S. have already arrived at Mexico City's huge wholesale warehouse and are helping to stabilize prices. But egg vendor Adrian Hernandez says his clients don't like the U.S. imports; they tell him the American eggs don't have any flavor, and that the yolks are pale.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/201...s?sc=17&f=1001
Ah, US BigFood/BigAg garbage, pathogenic food.
Corps dumb down your palate as well as your brain, as they sell the tiest possible product for the highest possible price.
America is known for growing for maximum profit, synthetic tasetless ty food full of chemicals. It is not about quality it is only about the bottom line profit.
health of consumers is even less a concern than quality, both are badly trumped by corporate profit.
Waiter, There's Arsenic in My Rice
the US poultry industry has a disturbing habit of feeding arsenic to chickens. Arsenic, it turns out, helps control a common bug that infects chicken meat, and also gives chicken flesh a pink hue, which the industry thinks consumers want. Is all that arsenic making it into our food supply? It appears to be doing so—both in chicken meat and in, of all things, rice. In a just released report, Consumer Reports says it found significant levels of arsenic in a variety of US rice products—including in brown rice and organic rice, and in rice-based kids' products like cereal and even baby formula. Driving the point home, CR's analysis of a major population study found that people who consume a serving of rice get a 44 percent e in the arsenic level in their urine.
Rice is particularly effective at picking up arsenic from soil, CR reports, "in part because it is one of the only major crops grown in water-flooded conditions, which allow arsenic to be more easily taken up by its roots and stored in the grains."
No federal limit exists for arsenic in most foods, but the standard for drinking water is 10 parts per billion. Keep in mind: That level is twice the 5 ppb that the EPA originally proposed and that New Jersey actually established. Using the 5 ppb standard in our study, we found that a single serving of some rices could give an average adult almost one and a half times the inorganic arsenic he or she would get from a whole day's consumption of water about liter.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philp...rsenic-my-rice
How Mitt Romney Helped Monsanto Take Over the World
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philp...-monsanto-bain
Mitt Romney, Monsanto Man
http://www.thenation.com/article/169...-monsanto-man#
Gecko is one toxic son of
but Barry also helped BigAg and Monsanto:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor
USA and govt are owned and operated by 1% and UCA. unstoppable.
Huh? How do you alter an egg? Thought chicken pop out eggs, clean it a bit and package them.
The diet of the chicken makes a huge difference in the quality of the egg. The living conditions of the chickens probably make a difference as well. I notice a big difference in taste between the cheap eggs, and ones that I buy.
French Study Finds Tumors and Organ Damage in Rats Fed Monsanto Corn
Rats fed a lifetime diet of Monsanto's genetically engineered corn or exposed to the company's popular Roundup herbicide developed tumors and suffered severe organ damage, according to a French study released on Wednesday.
The study could have a big impact on the battle over a California ballot proposal that would require groceries containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled as such. Monsanto has already donated $7.1 million to the campaign to defeat the proposal, known as Proposition 37.
The study, published in a reputable American journal, links varying levels of both the Roundup herbicide and the transgenes in Monsanto's patented NK603 corn to mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage.
The rats were either fed the NK603 corn alone, corn treated with agricultural levels of Roundup, or given water treated with Roundup at low levels commonly found in contaminated drinking water and used in agriculture in the United States. In each group, there were two to three more deaths compared to control groups, and the rats on the Monsanto diet died more quickly.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/11639...-monsanto-corn
Profits Over People!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0JD43L20131128The publisher of a controversial and much-criticised study suggesting genetically modified corn caused tumours in rats has withdrawn the paper after a yearlong investigation found it did not meet scientific standards.
Reed Elsevier's Food and Chemical Toxicology journal, which published the study by the French researcher Gilles-Eric Seralini in September 2012, said on Thursday the retraction was because the study's small sample size meant no definitive conclusions could be reached.
"This retraction comes after a thorough and time-consuming analysis of the published article and the data it reports, along with an investigation into the peer-review behind the article," the journal said in statement.
diet is the whole difference in the quality of the consuming organism, including humans, is why so many American are overweight and diseased, bad corporate diet. changes in diet cause changes in DNA, cause evolution
if a man made it, don't put it in your mouth
Tell the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Don’t approve GMO apples
“I don’t care about spots on my apples, just leave me the birds and the bees,” sang Joni Mitc in 1970. But if the US Department of Agriculture approves the new GMO “Arctic Apple,” you’ll end up with spotless apples that could not only be toxic, but also potentially dangerous for the environment.
We have no idea what long-term effects the Arctic Apple could have on bee pollinators, or the people – including children – who eat them. They're intended for the fresh-sliced apple market, but could find their way into the produce aisle shelves and into juice, juice-sweetened snacks, applesauce and baby foods, all of which are mostly consumed by children. And no labeling would be required.
The Department of Agriculture has opened a comment period on the Arctic Apple. We need to urge the agency to keep these apples off store shelves.
Tell the USDA: Reject GMO apples – they’re unnecessary and potentially dangerous.
If this unlabeled, potentially dangerous fruit succeeds in making it to market, it will only be the first of many. If there are long-term consequences to eating genetically modified fruit we won't find out under our current regulatory climate until much too late, because like other GMO foods, these apples are likely to be approved without any public, peer-reviewed study of their long-term effects.
The Department of Agriculture shouldn’t let food producers experiment further on us in its quest to make a minor cosmetic improvement to a fruit intended for mass human consumption.
The apple growers' industry associations representing over 60 percent of commercial orchards have already come out against GMO apples.1 Many are concerned about reduced consumer confidence in the apple market, while some organic growers are concerned that pollen contamination from GMO orchards could endanger their organic certification.2
McDonald's and Gerber have even said they won’t carry the apples in the foreseeable future.3
http://act.credoaction.com/letter/do...b5pab&rd=1&t=1
BigFood/BigAg are completely insane, screwing people and the environment.
Seralini refuses to retract:
http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/11/.../#.UqDCsuK2-7TSome days ago, the editor of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (Elsevier Group) which originally published the article, requested Professor Seralini to kindly retract it, that is to say to withdraw it himself.
The reason? “The results are inconclusive and therefore do not reach the threshold needed for publication” and “there is a legitimate reason for concern about both the number of animals tested in each group and the particular strain of rat selected,” he explains in a letter to the researcher at the University of Caen which Science and the Future has seen.
“MERIT”. The editor of FCT admits that “the problem of the low number of animals had been identified during the initial peer-review process” but it was finally decided to publish it because the work “still had merit despite its limitations”. It seems that the editorial policy of the magazine has changed (see here).
Praising the “goodwill and openness” of Gilles Eric Séralini, who provided the raw data to meet the criticisms raised by the article, the editor emphasises that finally, after having carefully and extensively studied it, the reviewers have detected “no fraud or manipulation of data”.
Refusal to comply and counter-attack
Professor Seralini now refuses to retract his article. He has argued for months that the offending strain of rat (the Sprague-Dawley) is used routinely in the United States – including sometimes by Monsanto to study the carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity of chemicals. He recalls that he has conducted a groundbreaking study on rats fed over a lifetime with this GM maize and even if he only used ten rats per group, he has nevertheless performed many more measurements on these animals.
“The disruption of sex hormones and other parameters are sufficient in this case to indicate a serious effect after a year,” he protested, demanding that we take into account “the timing and number of tumors per animal”.
DOUBLE STANDARD? There are many signs that should be considered in a real study of risk, he said. In addition, the researcher points to a paper by Monsanto, published in 2004 in the same journal FCT and never retracted, finding NK603 maize safe after measuring its effects on ten Sprague-Dawley rats for three months only, and asks: is there a double standard in force for assessment?
“Only studies pointing to adverse effects of GMOs are rigorously scrutinized on their experimental and statistical methods,” he said, “while those who say GMOs are safe are taken at face value.”
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-05-2013 at 01:36 PM.
FDA approves BigPharma crap based on BigPharma studies where good results are hyped, bad results are suppressed, and results are often kept secret. A "low number" of human guinea pigs is very small, if any.
FDA-approved really means "BigPharma gonna make $10Bs of this untested " (and then pay $Bs in fines and penalties for maimed and dead customers)
Elsevier sucking up to BigPharma
food grown outside US tastes better. I thought this was common knowledge?
Um...
No.
I flat out disagree.
Maybe where you live, but not here in the northwest.
mmm I am talking about mass produced food. I am sure there are local grown food in small farms that taste good, but I wasn't talking about that
Do you think other countries don't "mass produce" them for exports? They probably even use chemicals illegal here!
Do you think the shipping time foreign vs. nation adds taste to the food?
Europe is way ahead of USA in banning chemicals, endorcrine disruptor atrazine, neonicotinoids, etc.
But I'm sure China et al puts all kind of on food grown and in food-like garbage fabricated for USA, with almost no US inspection over there or upon import.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
