Two Georgia Dairy Farmers Spread Free Sewage Sludge Fertilizer And...

A clip from our 1+ hour interview with Dr. David Lewis, a former senior research microbiologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research & Development.

Rachel Linden, GMO Free News: You wrote about your research being used in a lawsuit, and correct me if I get any of this wrong, by two families in Georgia that owned dairies that had previously used sewage sludge on their land and their cattle died. How many cattle and can you tell us the story of what happened with that?

Dr. David Lewis: In both cases it was two of the most productive dairy farms in the state of Georgia, had been in operation since the 1940's. Suddenly after the city of Augusta, Georgia talked these two farm families into spreading this free sewage sludge fertilizer on their farms their cattle started dying.
The cattle were getting infections, and in some cases rare infections the cattle didn't normally get. It's a story that I saw repeated across the country.

These toxic mixtures of heavy metals and toxic organic chemicals cause a depression of the immune system. We saw it in humans and animals.

And that's what was happening on these two dairy farms.

So, they were having to haul off the sick cows and replace them with healthy cows, but they couldn't keep up with it. It destroyed both dairy farms.

In the process, they hired expert veterinarians to come in and figure out what was going on. And what they found is that the liver and kidneys in these cattle were damaged from the cocktail of toxic organic chemicals and heavy metals that were in the sludge.

And what they discovered when they went back, they filed a lawsuit over this against the city, and one of the farmers filed a lawsuit against the USDA later on.

What they found in discovery is that, for one thing, in 1993, when the sewage treatment plant in Augusta and everywhere else, other sewage treatment plants, had to start following the EPA's 503 sludge rule for certain metals, that the historical data for over 20 years in Augusta look clean.

I mean it's amazing to look at the graph.

For decades they had high levels of cadmium in their sludge, high levels of molybdenum, high levels of other things, including organic things like chlordane, a banned pesticide. All of a sudden, all of that went away in February , but yet nothing was done to change anything at the waste treatment plant.

That happened at waste treatment plants across the country.

So we got into that and found out, and the plant manager at the waste treatment plant admitted when deposed under oath, he sat down at a computer when EPA came down to look at what was going on in Augusta and publish its own research paper on what was wrong with the cattle, when they arrived within a day or two, when EPA arrived in Augusta, Georgia, the plant manager in Augusta sat down and got rid of twenty years of data, created twenty --- created data on a computer to represent those years, that showed the heavy metals were far lower than they really were.

And all of the original data disappeared. They disappeared at the University of Georgia, they disappeared at the state EPD, the Environmental Protection Division, in Atlanta, they disappeared at the federal EPA, and in the city of Augusta.

All of these original valid data disappeared and they published these fake data.

So EPA tried to cover up what happened in Augusta, the lawsuit was filed over it, it got into federal court when they sued the USDA. The USDA pulled out their own paper they published saying the levels of metals were fine, there was no problem there.

The federal judge in that case, Anthony Alaimo, a judge that was famous for fighting civil rights issues in the prisons, in fact there's a book about him out. He was the first judge to look at any of this situation and rule on it, and he ruled that EPA's testimony and USDA's data were not reliable because it was based on fabricated data.

And Judge Alaimo devoted several pages of his thirty-page ruling to how EPA suppressed my own research on this and other sites.

So that's the story of the dairy farms.

The British science journal Nature covered Judge Alaimo's ruling in an editorial calling for EPA to investigate and report toxic chemicals in sewage sludge and published a two page news article on the fake data.

The interesting thing about this issue is we have the scientific community behind us that something's got to be done about this problem, unlike other things where the pharmaceutical industry and the chemical industry has gotten the upper hand ahead of us on issues where we've got the government suppressing research and data and putting out misinformation.

This is not one of those areas. We have the scientific community at large behind us to do something about this problem.

Resource Links:

• McElmurray v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 535 F.Supp.2d 1318 (S.D. Ga., 2008) 
• A Summary of Court Records in Civil Actions Filed by David L. Lewis, Ph.D. , R.A. McElmurray, III and G. William Boyce Land Application of Processed Sewage Sludge (Biosolids) 1997-2011

In 2002, Oregon Voters Were Hoodwinked By Big Bucks And The FDA #WWGFNews

In the 2002 Oregon State General Election, Oregonians were swayed to vote against their Right To Know that GMOs were in their food by a six million dollar media blitz and a letter from the FDA to Governor John Kitzhaber. Before FDA Deputy Commissioner Lester M. Crawford sent his letter to the governor and news outlets on October 4, the Oregon Labeling of Genetically-Engineered Foods Act (Measure 27) was leading in the polls 65%-35%.

Supporters of the measure argued that "Oregonians should have the right to know what they are eating." They repeated the belief of some activists that genetic engineering of food poses a potential threat to health and safety. (See Voters Guide)

USA TODAY reporter Elizabeth Weise stated in her article, "In an unusual move, the federal government has warned the state of Oregon that it could be interfering with national food producers if voters pass a ballot measure requiring all genetically modified foods sold in the state to be labeled...The governor's press secretary, Tom Towslee, says the governor was surprised to get the letter. "For the federal government to weigh in on a ballot measure in little old Oregon is a little unusual, but they obviously feel strongly about it," Towslee says."

Thirty days after Dr. Crawford's letter Measure 27 was defeated 70%-30%.

Connecting the Dots 

• February 2005, President George W. Bush nominated Crawford to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs. His nomination stalled in the Senate for two months after he was accused of an extramarital affair with an FDA employee.

• July 2005, Dr. Crawford was confirmed by the Senate to be FDA Commissioner

• September 2005, Dr. Crawford resigned as the FDA Chief.

• 2005-2006: Dr. Crawford,68, joined the Washington lobbing firm, Policy Directions Inc., that represents the Grocers Manufactures Association, process food companies and biotech firms.

• In October 2006, the New York Times reported that Dr. Crawford was charged with conflict of interest and lying to congress. The 30 year FDA veteran held stock in biotech and food companies the government agency regulated and Policy Directions Inc. represented.

• On February 27, 2007, the former FDA Director was sentenced to three years' supervised probation and fines of roughly $90,000.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
It does not take peer review scientific studies to see how the anti GMO Labeling campaign used a FDA director/criminal/Washington DC lobbyist to deceive and mislead Oregon voters twelve years ago. Twenty-five year EPA staffer E.G. Vallianatos' new book, "Poison Spring," is filled with insider stories that explain how industry uses government agencies to protect profits at the pain and suffering of the people they are directed by the US Congress to protect.  

Rick North: "Response" To The Oregonian Op-Ed - Measure 27 (2002)

October 25, 2002: In a recent editorial, the Oregonian said that Measure 27 would create increased costs for consumers, echoing the statements of the opposition.

However, when it comes to labeling genetically engineered foods, there is simply no evidence that costs would increase significantly, if at all.

Over 25 nations, comprising nearly half the world’s population, have required labeling of genetically engineered foods. In every country, the result was either zero or minimal price increases. The opposition cites a “study” that estimates an increase of $550 per year for a four-person family, or $137 per person per year.

The Oregonian accepted this figure at face value, even though the study was funded completely by the opposition. This is reminiscent of studies paid for by the tobacco industry indicating that cigarette smoking didn’t cause cancer or heart disease.

By contrast, an independent study by Professor William Jaeger, an economist and agricultural resource policy specialist at Oregon State, estimated that increased costs in Oregon would be only $3 - $10 per person per year.

Independent studies for four other nations estimated similar costs – none were even close to the $137 figure. In reviewing the opposition’s study, Jaeger concluded that it “does not represent a detailed, thorough, or reliable economic analysis.” The Department of Administrative Services estimated the annual cost to regulate the labeling program at $11.3 million.

However, this includes costs for restaurants, schools, hospitals, and other establishments that serve or distribute food ready-to-eat. Without restaurants, schools, etc., the annual costs are $2.4 million, only 71 cents per person per year.

The initiative refers only to labeling food already having display panels for bulk, wholesale, or retail sale, and does not mention food served ready-to-eat.

Measure 27 advocates have stated in their websites and literature that these foods are not included, although the opposition has argued otherwise. Again, the Oregonian has simply accepted the opposition’s viewpoint.

Because there has been controversy over the initiative’s wording on this point, it’s helpful to know what would happen if the measure passes. If there are questions about interpretation of anystatutory initiative, legislative committees typically gather input from all sides, clarify any issues,and submit an amended law.

Since neither advocates nor opponents want labeling for restaurants,schools and other ready-to-eat food establishments, there is no disagreement and they obviously wouldn't be covered.And to clear up one other misconception, grocery clerks wouldn’t label genetically engineered food packaging, just as they don’t label for calories or vitamins. It’s done by the processor.

There are serious health, environmental, dietary and religious questions about genetically engineered foods. This is why the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, Union of Concerned Scientists and Oregon League of Conservation Voters, among many others, have endorsed Measure 27.

We have a right to know what is in our food. Consumers should be able to make an informed choice about what they eat, and, like the bottle bill, Oregon can lead the way. Please vote yes on Measure 27.

Rick North
Spokesperson
Vote Yes on 27 Committee
www.voteyeson27.com

BBC News | Sci/Tech | GM food safety row

BBC News | Sci/Tech | GM food safety row:


Dr Arpad Pusztai: Vindicated 

Twenty established scientists have come out in support of a colleague who said that rats fed on genetically-modified potatoes suffered damage to their immune systems.

The UK Government is now facing calls for an urgent safety review of genetically-modified (GM) foods and a row is brewing in the scientific community over the apparent suppression of important research.

Dr Arpad Pusztai, 68, made a public statement about his fears last August. He was effectively forced to retire by the Rowett Research Institute after it accused him of misinterpreting his results.

But the group of scientists, drawn from 13 different countries, have re-examined his work and signed a joint memorandum supporting his conclusions.

GM crops: Moratorium requested

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Labour MP Alan Simpson said Dr Pusztai had been "completely vindicated" and called for a moratorium on GM food.

Last year, the doctor's £1.6m research project, funded by the Scottish Office, found that when rats were fed on GM potatoes for a period of 10 days, the development of certain vital organs was impaired and their immune systems suffered.

Reports in the press also says the size of the rats' brains decreased.



Speaking on BBC Two's Newsnight programme, group spokesman Dr Vyvyan Howard, a Liverpool University toxipathologist, said he believed Dr Arpad's data was "sound".

Letter to Oregon Governor Supporting Mandatory Labeling of Foods Using Genetic Engineering | Consumers Union

Letter to Oregon Governor Supporting Mandatory Labeling of Foods Using Genetic Engineering | Consumers Union:

This letter explains why Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) supports Measure 27, the ballot initiative that would require mandatory labeling of foods and food additives produced using genetic engineering sold in Oregon, or produced in Oregon.
First and foremost, consumers have a fundamental right to know what they are eating. Many laws, at the federal, state and even local level, are designed to inform consumers of facts they want to know about food. These include laws that require labeling of juice made from concentrate, milk that is homogenized, imported food as to its country of origin, food that is frozen or irradiated, as well as ingredients and additives. All these foods are regarded as safe by the US Food and Drug Administration. However, this information is required to be given to consumers at the point of purchase because consumers care and want to know about these aspects of food. With this information, they are able to make informed choices for themselves and their families.


We thus disagree with the thrust of the letter sent to you on October 4, 2002, by FDA Deputy Commissioner Lester M. Crawford. Unlike FDA, we think the differences between genetically engineered food and non-engineered traditional foods are significant. We believe that FDA should have required labeling of genetically engineered food as a material fact under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. Indeed, several years ago more than 50 members of Congress sent a letter to the FDA Commissioner agreeing that genetic engineering is a material fact under the FDCA.

NOTE: On October 17, 2006, Lester M. Crawford pled guilty to a conflict of interest and false reporting of information about stocks he owned in food, beverage and medical device companies he was in charge of regulating. He received a sentence of three years of supervised probation and a fine of about $90,000.

Label debate pits big name vs. big bucks

Pamplin Media Group:

Supporters of a ballot measure requiring food companies to label genetically engineered foods have about $195,000 in campaign contributions and former Beatle Paul McCartney on their side.

On the other hand, while the measure's opponents may lack star power, they have a whopping $5 million in hand, contributed primarily by international food and biotechnology companies intending to snuff out the movement before other states get similar ideas.

Welcome to the battle over Ballot Measure 27, which is turning out to be among Oregon's most expensive Ñ and mismatched Ñ ballot measure campaigns.

Oregon is the first state to ask voters to decide if labels should be required on genetically altered foods. Previous attempts to pass national legislation requiring labels on such foods have gone nowhere.

The Oregon Labeling of Genetically-Engineered Foods, Measure 27 (2002) - Arguments in Favor

Measure 27 - Arguments in Favor:

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods has been working since 1999 to pass federal legislation to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United States. We strongly support Oregon Ballot Measure 27.

According to a June 13-17, 2001 survey from ABC News, 93 percent of those polled said the federal government should require labels on food saying whether it has been genetically modified. ABC News stated "Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare."

While legislation to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods nationwide was introduced into both the 106th and the current 107th U.S. Congress, it has not received the priority treatment needed to pass it into law.

In the European Union, Australia, Japan, China and many other nations, the controversy over genetically engineered foods has received significant media coverage. As a result, mandatory labeling laws have been enacted in all those countries. Yet in the United States, we still don't have this right.

The food industry does not want labels on genetically engineered foods because they are concerned people will start asking questions such as "Have these foods ever been safety tested for human consumption?" The answer to that question is "NO!" The FDA decided that genetically engineered foods are "substantially equivalent" to non-genetically engineered foods and need no additional safety testing or labeling. Currently the biotech companies do not even need to notify the FDA that they are bringing a new product to market. The very corporations that have a financial interest in selling the products get to decide whether they are safe or not.

Oregon voters are smart and have often shown leadership in important areas of public concern before the rest of the country. Oregon citizens now have another opportunity to show leadership in the area of labeling genetically engineered foods.

Tell big business that you want the right to know if your foods have been genetically engineered. Vote YES on Measure 27!

(This information furnished by Craig Winters, The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods.)


"COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC OPINION POLLS ON GENETICALLY
ENGINEERED (GE) FOODS (UPDATED FEBRUARY 1, 2002) Below is a compilation of poll results concerning of genetically engineered foods, listed in chronological order:

• 90% of Americans said foods created through genetic engineering processes should have special labels on them (Rutgers University' Food Policy Institute study, 11/01)
•  90% of American farmers support labels on biotech products if they are scientifically different from conventional foods and 61% support labels on biotech products even if not scientifically different. (Farm Foundation/Kansas State University, survey of farms throughout the U.S., 9/01).
• 93% of Americans say the federal government should require labels saying whether it's been genetically modified, or bioengineered. "Such near unanimity in public opinion is rare" (ABC News.com poll, 6/01).
• 86% of Americans think that the government should require the labeling of all packaged and other food products stating that they include corn, soy or other products which have come from genetically modified crops (Harris Poll, 6/00).
• 86% of Americans want labels on genetically engineered foods (International Communications Research, 3/00)
• 81% of Americans think the government should require genetically engineered food products to be labeled. 89% of Americans think the government should require pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods before they are marketed, as with any food additive. (MSNBC Live Vote Results, 1/00).
• 92% of Americans support legal requirements that all genetically engineered foods be labeled. (BSMG Worldwide for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, 9/99).
• 81% of American consumers believe GE food should be labeled. 58% say that if GE foods were labeled they would avoid purchasing them. (Time magazine, 1/99).
• 93% of women surveyed say they want all GE food clearly labeled. (National Federation of Women's Institutes, 1998)."

A Work Product of the Center for Food Safety - Washington, DC 2002
For more polls see http;//www.centerforfoodsafety.org/facts&issues/polls.html

(This information furnished by Donna Harris, Oregon Concerned Citizens for Safe Foods.)


 Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, a group of doctors committed to human health, patient safety, scientific honesty and environmental protection, supports a yes vote on Measure 27. 


    Less than a decade since their introduction, two-thirds of products in U.S. supermarket shelves contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. Only one-third of Americans are aware that their foods contain GE ingredients. Multiple polls show that 85% to 95% of citizens favor labeling.

    Currently, food substances are labeled for vitamin, mineral, caloric and fat content; wines containing sulfites warn those allergic. The European Union requires labeling; many countries ban import of GE foods from the US; other countries have or are considering labeling laws and import bans. Unfortunately, US regulatory agencies rely on safety tests done by GE product-producing companies.

    Risks of GE foods include: toxicities from new proteins (deadly eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome in consumers of GE tryptophan supplements); altered nutritional value; transfer of antibiotic resistance genes, contributing to antibiotic resistance; increased pesticide use when pests develop resistance to GE food toxins; herbicide-resistant "superweeds"; non-target insects dying from exposure to pesticide-resistant crops, with ripple effects on other species; GE plants and animals interbreeding with and contaminating wild populations; GE plants outcompeting, or driving to extinction, wild varieties; GE plants adversely altering soil quality; decreased agricultural biodiversity; and corporate control of agriculture, with the transmogrification of farmers into "bioserfs."

    Labeling of GE foods will prevent dangerous allergic attacks (as occurred in unsuspecting consumers of soybeans modified with Brazil Nut genes); allow vegetarians to avoid plants injected with animal genes; and allow concerned individuals to avoid ingesting milk from cattle injected with recombinant BGH, which increases levels of potentially-carcinogenic IGF-1 in milk.
 
Labeling will increase public awareness of genetic engineering, allow us freedom to choose what we eat based on individual willingness to confront risk, and ensure a healthy public debate over the merits of genetic modification of foodstuffs.

Board of Directors
Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility

(This information furnished by Martin Donohoe, MD, FACP, for Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility.)

The Oregon Labeling of Genetically-Engineered Foods, Measure 27 (2002) - Arguments in Opposition

Measure 27 - Arguments in Opposition:



Measure 27 Would Create
a Regulatory Nightmare
for Oregon Restaurant Owners Measure 27 would force Oregon restaurant owners to provide special warning labels with thousands of menu items served each that aren't 100% "organic." Organic food companies are promoting the labeling scheme, to try to give themselves a competitive advantage over conventional food producers.

State officials estimate regulating
restaurant food labels will cost
nearly $9 million a year. State officials estimate the Oregon Department of Agriculture will have to monitor more than 400,000 menu items served in Oregon restaurants, actually auditing 100,000 of those items, then sampling and testing 20,000 of them. State restaurant monitoring and inspections will cost the state nearly $9 million per year with nearly $3 million in start-up costs.

Measure 27 would also cost restaurant owners millions more. Restaurants would face a complicated new burden ­ special record keeping and research to track and determine the origin of virtually every product or ingredient used in any dish we serve. Staff time and costs would be passed on to Oregon consumers through higher prices. On top of that, we'd face huge fines and even jail terms if we accidentally use the wrong labels.

Many basic foods would require costly labels. Basic food items like bread, dairy products, meats and many beverages, would require Measure 27 labels reading "Genetically Engineered," even if they don't contain any genetically engineered ingredients. The labels would be useless. They are just intended to scare consumers away from "non-organic foods" -- even though they are just as safe as "organic" products.

On behalf of all the members of the Oregon Restaurant Association, I urge you to say NO to the Co$tly Labeling Law.

Please Vote NO on Measure 27. Bill McCormick, President
McCormick & Schmick's Restaurants

(This information furnished by Bill McCormick, Oregon Restaurant Association.)


Measure 27 Shifts Funds from Short-Changed Schools
to Pay for a Meaningless New Food Labeling Bureaucracy.One Teacher's Concerns about Measure 27. As a teacher, I'm painfully aware of how Oregon's economic slump has forced budget cuts in schools across the state, including where I teach.

At a time when Oregon is struggling to find funds for schools, Measure 27 proposes to create a new state bureaucracy ­ costing taxpayers more than $118 million over the next 10 years ­ to put meaningless labels on foods that aren't 100% "organic."

Schools Would Have to Put Labels on Food and Beverages Served in School Cafeterias, Vending Machines and Concession Stands To add insult to that injury, Measure 27 is so poorly written that it would require schools like mine to label foods and beverages served in the school cafeteria, in vending machines on school property and at concessions stands during athletic events.

Measure 27 is another example of initiative activists forcing Oregon voters to decide on an innocent-sounding proposal with huge, hidden impacts on government programs, taxpayers and consumers.

When Oregon's economy is sour, proposals like this are even more damaging. School costs make up nearly half of state budget expenditures. So nearly half of Measure 27's costs are likely to come from funds that otherwise would be available to pay for teachers, textbooks and testing ­ all of which have been cut in the current budget crisis.

Measure 27 Is a Right-to-Learn Issue Backers of Measure 27 claim it's a right-to-know issue, but in fact the information on the labels it requires would be misleading and useless to consumers. I think of Measure 27 as a right-to-learn issue. I believe my students have a right to an adequately funded education. Their right to learn should be the state's top funding priority ­ not some new bureaucratic program designed to further one group's political agenda.

Kraig Hoene
High School Social Studies Teacher

(This information furnished by Kraig J. Hoene.)

• The Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration and Oregon's Department of Agriculture manage the Federal system of food safety through intense, continual scrutiny. Thousands of university-based, publicly financed research projects provide basis for protection of food and fiber supplies.
• The consequential loss of jobs, livelihood and tax revenue adds burden to the remaining taxpayers to carry the burgeoning costs of a la carte ballot measures such as Measure 27. By Department of Agriculture estimates, Measure 27 will add $118 million to our already oversized general fund expenses through 100,000 inspections and by adding 60 new staff positions.
• 4. Consumers would pay higher food costs. In fact, a recent study estimated that Measure 27's labeling scheme would cost an average family of four an additional $550 a year
• Studies show that, by forcing many common food products to be repackaged or remade with higher-priced ingredients, Prop 37 would cost the average California family hundreds of dollars more per year for groceries.
• Ultimately, consumers will pay for this through higher costs at the grocery store. In fact, a separate economic study concluded that forcing products to be repackaged or remade with higher priced ingredients would cost the average California family up to $400 per year in higher grocery costs.
• The average family of four would be forced to shoulder an average of $500 in additional food costs each year and could be as high as $800 per year. (New York)

Warning: This is your brain on toxins | Opinion | The Seattle Times

Warning: This is your brain on toxins | Opinion | The Seattle Times:

“Lead helps to guard your health.”

That was the marketing line that the former National Lead Co. used decades ago to sell lead-based household paints. Yet we now know that lead was poisoning millions of children and permanently damaging their brains. Tens of thousands of children died, and countless millions were left mentally impaired.

One boy, Sam, born in Milwaukee in 1990, “thrived as a baby,” according to his medical record. But then, as a toddler, he began to chew on lead paint or suck on fingers with lead dust, and his blood showed soaring lead levels.

Sam’s family moved homes, but it was no use. At age 3, he was hospitalized for five days because of lead poisoning, and in kindergarten his teachers noticed that he had speech problems. He struggled through school, and doctors concluded that he had “permanent and irreversible” deficiencies in brain function.

Sam’s story appears in “Lead Wars,” a book by Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner published this year that chronicles the monstrous irresponsibility of companies in the lead industry over the course of the 20th century. Eventually, over industry protests, came regulation and the removal of lead from gasoline. As a result, lead levels of U.S. children have declined 90 percent in the past few decades, and scholars have estimated that, as a result, children’s IQs on average have risen at least two points and perhaps more than four.

So what are the lessons from the human catastrophe of lead poisoning over so many decades? 

Alarm about endocrine disruptors once was a fringe scientific concern, but increasingly has moved mainstream. There is still uncertainty and debate about the risk posed by individual chemicals, but there is growing concern about the risk of endocrine disruptors in general — particularly to fetuses and children. There is less concern about adults.

These are the kinds of threats that we in journalism are not very good at covering. We did a wretched job covering risks from lead and tobacco in the early years; instead of watchdogs, we were lap dogs.

Andrea C. Gore, the editor of Endocrinology, published an editorial asserting that corporate interests are abusing science today with endocrine disruptors the way they once did with lead: for the “production of uncertainty.”

She added that the evidence is “undeniable: that endocrine-disrupting chemicals pose a threat to human health.”

When scientists feud, it’s hard for the rest of us to know what to do. But I’m struck that many experts in endocrinology, toxicology or pediatrics aren’t waiting for regulatory changes. They don’t heat food in plastic containers, they reduce their use of plastic water bottles, and they try to give their kids organic food to reduce exposure to pesticides.

So a question for big chemical companies: Are you really going to follow the model of tobacco and lead and fight regulation every step of the way, once more risking our children’s futures?

The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar Is Big Food?

The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar Is Big Food?

KELLY D. BROWNELL and KENNETH E. WARNER
Yale University; University of Michigan (2009)

Context:In 1954 the tobacco industry paid to publish the “Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” in hundreds of U.S. newspapers. It stated that the public’s health was the industry’s concern above all others and promised a variety of good-faith changes. What followed were decades of deceit and actions that cost
millions of lives. In the hope that the food history will be written differently, this article both highlights important lessons that can be learned from the tobacco experience and recommends actions for the food industry.

Methods:A review and analysis of empirical and historical evidence pertaining to tobacco and food industry practices, messages, and strategies to influence public opinion, legislation and regulation, litigation, and the conduct of science.

Findings: The tobacco industry had a playbook, a script, that emphasized personal responsibility, paying scientists who delivered research that instilled doubt, criticizing the “junk” science that found harms associated with smoking, making self-regulatory pledges, lobbying with massive resources to stifle government action, introducing “safer” products, and simultaneously manipulating and denying both the addictive nature of their products and their marketing to children. The script of the food industry is both similar to and different from
the tobacco industry script.

Conclusions: Food is obviously different from tobacco, and the food industry differs from tobacco companies in important ways, but there also are significant similarities in the actions that these industries have taken in response to concern that their products cause harm. Because obesity is now a major global problem, the world cannot afford a repeat of the tobacco history, in which industry talks about the moral high ground but does not occupy it.

...the industry is organized and politically powerful. It
consists of massive agribusiness companies like Cargill, Archer Daniels
Midland, Bunge, and Monsanto; food sellers as large as Kraft (so big
as to own Nabisco) and Pepsi-Co (owner of Frito Lay); and restaurant
companies as large as McDonald’s and Yum! Brands (owner of Pizza
Hut, Taco Bell, KFC, and more). These are represented by lobbyists,
lawyers, and trade organizations that in turn represent a type of food (e.g.,
Snack Food Association, American Beverage Association), a segment of
the industry (e.g., National Restaurant Association), a constituent of
food (e.g., Sugar Association, Corn Refiners Association), or the entire
industry (e.g., Grocery Manufacturers of America).
Common to all these players is an arresting logic: to successfully
address the obesity epidemic, the nation must consume fewer calories,
which means eating less food...A shrinking market for all those
calories would mean less money—a lot less.



Address correspondence to: Kelly D. Brownell, Rudd Center for Food Policy and
Obesity, Yale University, 309 Edwards St., Box 208369, New Haven, CT
06520-8369 (email: kelly.brownell@yale.edu).
The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 87, No. 1, 2009 (pp. 259–294)
c 2009 Milbank Memorial Fund. Published by Wiley Periodicals Inc.
259

Poisoned For Profit: philip morris white coat project

Book: Poisoned For Profit: How Toxins Are Making Our Children Chronically Ill, based on more than five years of investigative research and reporting, reveals the cumulative scientific evidence connecting the massive increase in environmental poisons to the epidemic of disability, disease, and dysfunction among our nation´s children.

Poisoned For Profit Page 164:

"Studies produced by the scientists-for-hire were praised as "sound science," while opposing research was denigrated as "junk science," terms created purposely for the tobacco industry.

This strategy of doubt and other ploys used in the tobacco wars served as fully staged dress rehearsals for"...BioTech and BigAg.

Watch Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hefTk8m4tMI

Read More

GMO Free CT Rally - Minuteman Park, Hartford, CT

On December 12, 2012, the grassroots organization GMO Free CT held a rally in Minuteman Park across from the Connecticut State Legislature in Hartford to build support for legislation to require labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

This legislation would give consumers a choice when deciding what to feed their families. Today, without a labeling law, potentially hazardous GMOs are being introduced into the American food supply.

Over 60 countries around the world have banned GMOs, but in the US, consumers do not currently have the ability to make informed decisions about the food they eat.

The Audit Committee was established by the Director of the Rowett Research Institute in August 1998

The Audit Committee was established by the Director of the Rowett Research Institute in August 1998

The Audit Committee was established by the Director of the Rowett Research Institute in August 1998. Its remit was to determine whether statements made by or attributed to Dr Pusztai during a World in Action programme broadcast on the 10^th August 1998 were justified on the basis of the experimental evidence available at that time and to report its findings to the Director. The Audit Committee met on the 21^st August and reported shortly thereafter.

The relevant statements taken from a transcript of the World in Action programme prepared by Tellex Monitors Ltd were:

Andrew Brittain (Presenter): "Professor Pusztai's lab is at Scotland's Rowett Institute, one of the leading food research centres in Europe. Scientists here are trying to find out whether long-term consumption of GM foods may affect health. Their test, funded by the Scottish Office, is believed to be the only one of its kind.

Rats have fed two different kinds of genetically modified potato, which are not on sale and have never been eaten by humans. The rats ate them for more than 100 days, the human equivalent of 10 years."

Professor Arpad Pusztai: "The immune system takes about 10 days to get in top gear. So, if we do a short-term trial, we wouldn't have seen the end result."

Andrew Brittain: "Animals fed on one kind of research potato remained perfectly health. But rats given the other set did show ill-effects. The Professor is so concerned about the implications of his discovery, he's decided to publicise his findings early. Tonight, he reveals them for the first time."

Professor Arpad Pusztai: "The effect was slight growth retardation and an effect on the immune system. One of the genetically modified potatoes, after 110 days, made the rats less responsive to immune effects."

The three statements implicit in this exchange were: the completion of long-term experiments (110 days) made with two different kinds of GM potatoes, the retardation of growth and the reduced response to a challenge to the immune system. These three points were found by the Audit Committee to be untrue or not supported by the evidence. 

Report of Dr Pusztai

Dr Puszrtai was provided with a copy of the Audit report by the Director and was invited to respond. This he did in October 1998, commenting both on the conclusions of the Audit Committee and on the data from experiment D249, an experiment not started at the time of the recording of the World in Action programme and only completed after the Audit process. A copy of his response was sent to all members of the Audit Committee.

In his report Dr Pusztai takes issue with the Audit committee on three broad counts:

their comments on the analytical data;

• their failure to take account of differences in organ weights in animals fed GM potatoes compared with parental controls;
• their conclusion with respect to immune function.
• Dr Pusztai also rejects the conclusion of the Audit Committee that the existing data (data available in August 1998) did not support any suggestion that the consumption by rats of transgenic potatoes expressing GNA has an effect on growth, organ development or immune function.

Pro-GM food scientist accused to threaten Lancet editor

Pro-GM food scientist accused to threaten Lancet editor

TITLE:  Pro-GM food scientist 'threatened editor'
SOURCE: The Guardian, UK, by Laurie Flynn & Michael Sean Gillard
DATE:   November 1, 1999

----------------- archive: http://www.gene.ch/ ------------------


Pro-GM food scientist 'threatened editor'

The editor of one of Britain's leading medical journals, the
Lancet, says he was threatened by a senior member of the Royal
Society, the voice of the British science establishment, that his
job would be at risk if he published controversial research
questioning the safety of genetically fied foods.

Richard Horton declined to name the man who telephoned him. But
the Guardian has identified him as Peter Lachmann, the former
vice-president and biological secretary of the Royal Society and
president of the Academy of Medical Sciences. The Guardian has
been told that an influential group within the Royal Society has
set up what appears to be a "rebuttal unit" to push a pro-biotech
line and counter opposing scientists and environmental groups.

Dr Horton said he was called at his office in central London on
the morning of Wednesday October 13, two days before the Lancet
published a research paper by Arpad Pusztai, the scientist at the
centre of the GM controversy. Dr Horton, editor of the Lancet
since 1995, said the phone call began in a "very aggressive
manner". He said he was called "immoral" and accused of
publishing Dr Pusztai's paper which he "knew to be untrue".

Towards the end of the call Dr Horton said the caller told him
that if he published the Pusztai paper it would "have
implications for his personal position" as editor. The Lancet is
owned by Reed Elsevier, one of Europe's largest scientific
publishing houses. At the end of the call Dr Horton, 37, said he
immediately informed his colleagues and named the caller.