GENT NEED FOR US TO TAKE ACTION NO LATER THAN MONDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2007

The US Department of Agriculture Plans to Irradiate (which they call Pasteurize) ALL Raw Greens. See below for tips on what to do:


I'm forwarding a message from Bob Avery. We need to take action fast!

Bob writes:

Our "beloved" government intends to require that all greens be pasteurized prior to sale, and their open comment period from the public runs only until this Monday, Dec. 3! We need to make our opinions heard and registered immediately if we hope to be able to still buy raw greens in the supermarkets.In the forwarded e-mail below, they refer to the FDA, but they really mean the USDA. Here are the procedures for posting a public comment:

1) To submit online: Go to regulations.gov. In the middle of the screen, you will see “Search Documents.”

In Step 1, choose “Documents with an open comments period”

In Step 2, choose “Department of Agriculture”

In Step 3, choose “PROPOSED RULES”

In Step 4, choose “Docket ID” and then type in “AMS-FV-07-0090”

Hit “Submit.”




Next, you will see a column titled “Comments, add/due by.” Click on the tiny tan dialogue icon, and you are now ready to submit your information and your comment.

2) To fax: (202) 720-8938.

Subject: FDA Plans to Nuke ALL Our Greens Soon -- Take Action Quickly!

The proposal is for federal regulations to mandate the 'pasteurization' of all greens. And as bad as that sounds, it gets worse: the FDA has started using the word 'pasteurize' as a euphemism or cover for what they really are up to, which is irradiation. I've seen this coming (they've already mandated 'pasteurizing' almonds-- burning them with carcinogenic, banned rocket fuel... yes, really!)-- but they've sprung it on us, revealing their plan only recently, and allowing only till Monday, Dec. 3 for public comment. (In the past, the FDA had comment periods of several weeks or even months. This is obscene!

We need to take action. Almonds in September 2007; all greens (including organic) in the near future; what's next? If we don't act, we have only ourselves to blame as our food supply becomes ever more nutrient-deprived and/or toxic.

Follow the link to read more and take action at the FDA Comment Line. Also pass it on to your friends:




here.

Even more important, get to know your Senators and Representatives and call them; their willingness to address issues depends on how many constituents call them to complain or voice their support. It only takes 5 minutes to call the toll-free Congressional switchboard numbers when an important issue like this comes up, and they are listening. For example, I remember a number of years back when the FDA wanted to dismantle the the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act that is the underpinning that allows Americans the health freedom to pursue alternative medicine, herbs and supplements. Thousands of Americans called and wrote Congress to protest aggressively, and as a result the plan was tabled.

Sadly, the FDA hardly ever listens to the public and heeds their wishes at all these days. That's why I personally think it's even more important to voice your concern Monday to the Senators and Represenatives who represent you. Let them know you want your the agri-business corporations to take responsibility and use more hygienic handling practices and more prudent shipping methods, even if it costs them a little more, rather than passing the burden on to you in the form of toxic, devitalized food devoid of most of its nutritional value. Enough is enough!

As usual you have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about and regurgitating someone else's garbage without even checking if it was true :
toxic, devitalized food devoid of most of its nutritional value
Irradiation of food has been done for years, is safe and is practiced internationally . The food doesn't have contact with toxic materials and it doesn't affect the nutritional value of the food.

Once again meepins shows his ignorance and lack of critical thinking ability.

The "facts" that meepins posted above are wrong, but that's not unexpected. Let's look what meepins is missing. What is the need for irradiated food? We've been eating raw food for tens of thousands of years with no problems. So what has changed? The push for irradiated food is that food sanitation in the big industry farms is abysmal. Rather than clean up their practises, they'd rather just irradiate the food at the end of the process and call it "clean".

So meepins, here's a steak with shit on it. If we irradiate it to kill the bacteria you'll be happy to eat it, right?

Do some fucking research idiot.

I will repost this maybe you should watch it considering the UN knows 3 billion people are going to die after they are done with destroying nutrient dense foods...

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-5266884912495233634&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>

www.healthfreedomusa.org

Once again meepins shows his ignorance and lack of critical thinking ability.

The "facts" that meepins posted above are wrong, but that's not unexpected. Let's look what meepins is missing. What is the need for irradiated food? We've been eating raw food for tens of thousands of years with no problems. So what has changed? The push for irradiated food is that food sanitation in the big industry farms is abysmal. Rather than clean up their practises, they'd rather just irradiate the food at the end of the process and call it "clean".

So meepins, here's a steak with shit on it. If we irradiate it to kill the bacteria you'll be happy to eat it, right?
Show me exactly how I'm wrong with 'facts'. Nowhere do I say the agri-industry shouldn't move to better their cleaning practices.
Is the food toxic once irradiated?
Does the food lose it's nutritional value?

Stay away from drinking water by the way, what with all that shit in it.

Do some fucking research idiot.

I will repost this maybe you should watch it considering the UN knows 3 billion people are going to die after they are done with destroying nutrient dense foods...

<embed style="width: 400px; height: 326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-5266884912495233634&hl=en" flashvars="">
You and your videos are a fucking wasteland. RESEARCH?! Don't make me fucking laugh you nutbag. Watching a video isn't research.

FUCK AMERICA STRAIGHT TO FUCKING HELL.
SWEAR IT TO MY GOD.
I WILL AVENGE THESE GREENS FRVR!!!!!!!!

Show me exactly how I'm wrong with 'facts'. Nowhere do I say the agri-industry shouldn't move to better their cleaning practices.
Is the food toxic once irradiated?
Does the food lose it's nutritional value?

Stay away from drinking water by the way, what with all that shit in it.

Right and I suppose you took the time to read over the wed site I posted as well?

You know tap water has fluoride in it. Know where that comes the fucking gulag because, it makes you complacent. Look it up.

Yes the food does loose its nutrients after being zapped.

http://www.thehealthierlife.co.uk/article/2961/irradiation.html

"Irradiation turns even the most nutritious foods into junk foods
In an earlier e-alert, US HSI panellist Dr Allan Spreen stated that an abundance of nutrients are eliminated by this process. Jon Barron, another distinguished panellist, agreed and added, "As much as 70 percent of the vitamin A, B1 and B2 in irradiated milk is destroyed, and about 30 percent of vitamin C."

And Barron elaborated with the following sobering information: "Food is exposed to 'hard' irradiation, usually gamma rays from a source like cobalt-80, in doses of 100,000 to 3,000,000 rads. To give you a sense of how high a dose this is, understand that a dose of just 10,000 rads will totally destroy any living tissue."

Any living tissue? Let's analyse that. When a pig or cow is killed, the animal is dead, but its tissues aren't, and this is when meat is at its most nutritious - if it's eaten fresh and not "cooked to death" (an apt term). So if 10,000 rads totally destroys living tissue, then irradiated meat that you purchase from the supermarket is essentially nutrition-free.

This is not simple conjecture - the facts are in: Food irradiation is a clear and present danger to your health.

Rats are dying of IFS - are you next?
Even the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) admits to some shocking results from animal research. In its final report approving food radiation, the FDA admitted that when up to 35 per cent of the lab-animal diet was irradiated, the studies had to be terminated because of "premature mortality or morbidity." And in another investigation at the Medical College of Virginia, in the US, rats fed irradiated beef "died of haemorrhagic syndrome in 34 days."

How would you like for your tombstone to read: "Here lies Joe Citizen - Died from IFS at the age of 50." IFS stands for "Irradiated Food Syndrome." I made it up, but if rats get it from eating radiotoxic foods, then chances are good that we can, too.

One last testimonial, from a friend and colleague of mine who said: "Ionizing radiation causes free radicals and lipid peroxidation. Ionizing radiation sterilises by scrambling molecules. It changes molecular structure. Nutrients can become non-nutrients, or even anti-nutrients. It can transform nutrients into 'empty' calories, like refining. It's a conspiracy to extend shelf life and enhance profits for the 'Corporation'. I won't consume any of that stuff if I can help it." "

I don't know what 'wed site' is supposed to refer to but rest assured I don't follow any links to your sites, I'll happily just take thirty seconds to point out to you that you're wrong. Which is all it really takes because we can assume you're wrong immediately, about whatever subject you bring up.

One last testimonial, from a friend and colleague of mine who said: "Ionizing radiation causes free radicals and lipid peroxidation. Ionizing radiation sterilises by scrambling molecules. It changes molecular structure. Nutrients can become non-nutrients, or even anti-nutrients. It can transform nutrients into 'empty' calories, like refining. It's a conspiracy to extend shelf life and enhance profits for the 'Corporation'. I won't consume any of that stuff if I can help it.
I'm just crazy like that, I follow extensively scientifically researched work rather than 'my friend told me so it's true'.

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/food.htm

Are irradiated foods still nutritious? Yes. Irradiated foods are wholesome and nutritious. All known methods of food processing and even storing food at room temperature for a few hours after harvesting can lower the content of some nutrients, such as vitamins. At low doses of radiation, nutrient losses are either not measurable or, if they can be measured, are not significant. At the higher doses used to extend shelf-life or control harmful bacteria, nutritional losses are less than or about the same as cooking and freezing
If you had just a little bit of education in biology you would realise that you're more likely to affect the food through over-cooking it rather than the irradiation.

I also see Lancaster hasn't come back yet with anything more substantial than his straw man.

Wasteland.

meepins must be an employee of some huge bloodsucking corporation.bye your food at local farmers markets,the grocery chains are becoming mcdonalds.

Show me exactly how I'm wrong with 'facts'.

Okay if you insist. You claim irradiated food is safe. Irradiating food causes chemical change as does cooking. Yet irradiated food produces chemical products that no other cooking process does. These byproducts, termed "Radio-lytic", have not undergone the usual human trials to assure safety. Rats fed irradiated food have developed colon cancer in laboratory studies. Google "irradiated food" colon OR liver cancer.

Debunking claim 2: You clam "doesn't affect the nutritional value of the food". Here's a link with summaries of studies showing the opposite.

http://www.ccnr.org/food_irradiation.html

I follow extensively scientifically researched work
http://www.physics.isu.edu

Unfortunately your extensive research (one website) failed you. Perhaps next time you'll look in a more appropriate place - say biology rather than physics.

...you would realise that you're more likely to affect the food through over-cooking it rather than the irradiation.

Did you actually read the original post by Kermit, or do you just troll his threads without reading (or thinking). The topic is about how irradiation affects raw foods.

Thank you.

Okay if you insist. You claim irradiated food is safe. Irradiating food causes chemical change as does cooking. Yet irradiated food produces chemical products that no other cooking process does. These byproducts, termed "Radio-lytic", have not undergone the usual human trials to assure safety. Rats fed irradiated food have developed colon cancer in laboratory studies. Google "irradiated food" colon OR liver cancer.
Debunking claim 2: You clam "doesn't affect the nutritional value of the food". Here's a link with summaries of studies showing the opposite.
http://www.ccnr.org/food_irradiation.html

I'm honestly too lazy too look, do you want to fetch me a study done in the aftermath of this testimony given in 1987 that conclusively proves that irradiation creates dangerous cancer causing amounts of the Radio-lytic byproduct. I think it causes about the same amount as say.. you were to fry the food.

They were saying not enough research had been done then, we're now in 2008 **not quite yet** (Whoops, this is what you get when you argue with gullible tardlings in the early hours)and still irradiating food.
I'm going along with the larger body of scientific evidence as opposed to what you have just posted there.

meepins must be an employee of some huge bloodsucking corporation.bye your food at local farmers markets,the grocery chains are becoming mcdonalds.I'm not against people having a choice between irradiated and non irradiated food. I already covered this when I responded to Lancasters straw man argument.

Unfortunately your extensive research (one website) failed you. Perhaps next time you'll look in a more appropriate place - say biology rather than physics.I could post a link to an FDA page which will say pretty much the exact same thing..but like I say I'm too lazy

This is where my issue is with what was originally posted:

This 'nuked' veggie is

'toxic' - unproven as far as I can see.

'devoid of most of it's nutritional value' - still plain wrong.

I'm immediately going to be skeptical of the 'organic foods industry' . They appear to me as money grubbing fuckers much like the big food corps conspiring to put this irradiated food on shelves to enhance profits. It all has a strong whiff of misinformation.



Did you actually read the original post by Kermit, or do you just troll his threads without readingYou're in the nutjob camp then, brilliant. Send me a postcard from the FEMA nazi slave camps Lancaster when the Jewish Bankers and Illuminati take over the world. I'll go listen to Alex Jones fight the NWO in the meantime.

http://members.ift.org/NR/rdonlyres/9426F7D2-5148-4322-B089-638E52C78872/0/irradiation.pdf

There ya go, read from effects of irradiation on down. Yerp looks like I'm right about Radiolytics.. that is unless this was written by those crafty Jews!

And again we have meepins trying to worm his way out by changing his argument. How very Christian of you, meepins.

If you bothered to read that article you linked to you'd find that it states that irradiating food does cause vitamin loss. Your original claim that "...it [irradiation] doesn't affect the nutritional value of the food." has been debunked by yourself.

You claim irradiated food is safe. I've pointed out that irradiated food fed to lab rats causes colon cancer and that I am not aware of any studies performed on humans either way. A substance that causes cancer in rats and hasn't been tested on humans cannot be assumed to by safe. The burden of proof is on you, if you assert that it is safe.

You seem to be a proponent of irradiating foods, with your claim of it's safety and appeal to popularity by pointing out that it is "practiced internationally". Why are you so supportive of it?

I don't know what 'wed site' is supposed to refer to but rest assured I don't follow any links to your sites, I'll happily just take thirty seconds to point out to you that you're wrong. Which is all it really takes because we can assume you're wrong immediately, about whatever subject you bring up. . .




*stopped having hope here*

And again we have meepins trying to worm his way out by changing his argument. How very Christian of you, meepins.

If you bothered to read that article you linked to you'd find that it states that irradiating food does cause vitamin loss. Your original claim that "...it [irradiation] doesn't affect the nutritional value of the food." has been debunked by yourself.

You claim irradiated food is safe. I've pointed out that irradiated food fed to lab rats causes colon cancer and that I am not aware of any studies performed on humans either way. A substance that causes cancer in rats and hasn't been tested on humans cannot be assumed to by safe. The burden of proof is on you, if you assert that it is safe.

You seem to be a proponent of irradiating foods, with your claim of it's safety and appeal to popularity by pointing out that it is "practiced internationally". Why are you so supportive of it?
How very Christian.. good one.You have absolutely nothing and it's hilarious to see you squirm.
As it says anywhere credible you would care to look..'At low doses of radiation, nutrient losses are either not measurable or, if they can be measured, are not significant' You want to keep arguing a position that is wrong. So we were talking about vegetables getting 'nuked' and losing 'most of their nutritional value' - guess what kind of foods get low doses?
Those dangerous cancer causing Radiolytics you are so worried about are the same as when you cook food. As I have pointed out before.

'Despite concerns expressed by those who decry the use of radiation, no unique radiolytic products of toxiclogical significance have been found in irradiated food'

You point to a few lab rats getting colon cancer as significant enough to suspect that it isn't safe. So I'm assuming as soon as you saw that report you stopped cooking your food straight away because of all those dangerous Radiolytics right? Clearly they cause cancer so the only way to avoid ingesting large amounts is to never cook your food again. Correct?

I can't speak for anyone else here but I'm going to keep cooking my food.
If you ask me chicken just doesn't taste the same raw, and I believe there could be problems with bacteria that could make a person sick!

Yet all these international bodies for food safety claim irradiation is safe, and after hearing about these poor lab rats in 1987 getting colon cancer directly from ingesting irradiated food, they kept doing it anyway with a flagrant disregard for yours and everyone elses health. Not only that they never told us about the danger of COOKING THE FOOD. OH FUCKING NOES!
It must be those Jew bankers, those fuckers are everywhere trying to gives us cancer and take over the world!

Why support irradiation you ask? Apparently it is a safe and efficient way of removing dangerous pathogens from food.

WASHINGTON, DC, October 3, 2000 - Ideological attacks on food irradiation hinder efforts to save lives and enhance the safety of the food supply, the Grocery Manufacturers of America said today. In response to the latest series of orchestrated attacks on irradiation led by the group Public Citizen, GMA said the scientific evidence supporting the benefits of food irradiation is overwhelming. "The bottom line is that food irradiation can help save lives," said Lisa Katic, a registered dietitian and GMA Director, Scientific and Nutrition Policy. "The General Accounting Office - Congress' independent investigation agency - reviewed more than 50 years worth of scientific evidence on food irradiation. Their verdict: food irradiation is a safe, effective tool for reducing foodborne pathogens."
Scientific bodies from around the world have attested to the safety and the benefits of food irradiation, according to Dr. Lester Crawford, Director of the Georgetown Center for Food and Nutrition Policy (http://www.ceresnet.org/).
"You can't erase decades of scientific substantiation," said Crawford, former Administrator at the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service and former Director of FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. "From the American Medical Association to the World Health Organization, the mainstream scientific and medical community around the globe has attested to the safety of irradiation."
GMA's Katic noted that irradiation "will never be considered as a stand-alone tool to ensure food safety. Manufacturers work every day to assure the safety and quality of the products sold to consumers. Irradiation is just an extra weapon in the food safety arsenal.
"Sadly, misinformation about irradiation and proposed moratoriums on its use - like current legislation proposed in New Jersey - hinder efforts to enhance the safety of the world's food supply," she said. "Acceptance of pasteurization was long delayed because of fear mongering and misinformation. We should not let that happen with food irradiation."
GMA hosts an Irradiation Facts and Figures page on its Web site, at www.gmabrands.com/pubpolicy/irradiation/index.cfm (http://www.gmabrands.com/pubpolicy/irradiation/index.cfm).


Basically you've got nothing, I have shown you are a gullible tard who has fallen for some very obvious mis-information. You can keep arguing and pretend you are in the right, but you are so spectacularly wrong it's getting a bit sad now like your friend Kermit.

*stopped having hope here*
Have you got an argument?
If not shut then fuck up while grown ups are talking.

Yes the government loves you everything is fine stay asleep.

Yes the government loves you everything is fine stay asleep.
tumbleweed
Hooray!! I was waiting for that shitty platitude to be wheeled out in the face of overwhelming evidence you can't sanely argue with.

IT'S THE JEWS WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

Did you bother to do any research at all about food codex alimentarius?

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

Look up some of your key nutrients and amino acids ect. What they have done is relabeled them as toxins. And set standard dosages to levels that provide little nutritional value and some will become totally unavailable. Once these standards become accepted world wide (supposedly by the end of 2009). It will be nearly impossible to be nutritionally sound. Right now we have a choice. Also under codex alimentarius standards all dairy cows would be required to be treated with RBGH growth hormones and all farm animals treated with antibiotics.

On top of that the federal government is calling for registration of all farm animals even just one chicken. If you don't register you could face time in prison.

Google NAIS or codex alimentarius or Monsanto foods

ublished on Friday, March 17, 2000 in the Washington Post
Worries Rise As Agribusiness Feeds Livestock Pro-Growth Antibiotics
by Marc Kaufman

A 66-year-old woman was recovering from a heart bypass in a hospital near Detroit when she suddenly developed respiratory failure and a serious infection. Doctors quickly gave her an antibiotic that usually works. This time, however, it didn't. The bacteria causing the woman's infection were resistant to the drug.

The woman's doctors immediately turned to a newly approved antibiotic, a powerful one designed specifically to attack the kind of dangerous antibiotic-resistant microbes that had infected her. But her physicians were dismayed to find that drug didn't work either--the bacteria in her body were resistant to it as well. The woman died soon after.

Cases like this around the country have caused rising alarm among infectious disease doctors and public health experts. They are also at the center of an increasingly acrimonious dispute now before the Food and Drug Administration over how antibiotics are used in this country--specifically, how farmers use them to promote the growth of livestock.

Experts have long known that the overuse of antibiotics by doctors and their patients has reduced the ability of those drugs to cure infections. Now there is mounting evidence that the antibiotics widely used on farm animals are also diminishing the power of important antibiotics to help people.

Giving animals antibiotics in their feed can cause microbes in the livestock to become resistant to the drugs. People can then become infected with the resistant bacteria by eating or handling meat contaminated with the pathogens.

"Many of us believe there is a tremendous overuse of antibiotics for animals," said Marcus Zervos, an infectious disease specialist at William Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak, Mich., who was involved in the Michigan case. "There is some very strong opposition to our view that animal antibiotics are undermining antibiotics for people, but this whole area has to be reconsidered."

Most of the antibiotics used on the farm are not administered to treat sick animals. Instead, farmers feed livestock a low-level diet of antibiotics to attack bacteria that might require the animal's body to expend energy to kill off. This allows animals to grow more quickly and, from a producer's point of view, more efficiently.

But this practice has increasingly become the focus of concern. Researchers have already found evidence that the use of antibiotics on farms has led to an increase in antibiotic-resistant cases of food poisoning caused by campylobacter and salmonella bacteria in people.

Now, doctors and researchers point to the antibiotic the Michigan woman received--Synercid, an important drug-of-last-resort in fighting life-threatening infections--as a case study illustrating why they are so concerned.

While Synercid was approved for human use only last fall, a closely related drug called Virginiamycin has been used on livestock since 1974. Researchers have found Virginiamycin-resistant bacteria in as much as 50 percent of supermarket chicken, turkey and pork. That alone causes concern that the effectiveness of Synercid is already significantly reduced in humans.

"It's clear that the use of Virginiamycin to promote the growth of food animals is a hazard to human health," said Frederick J. Angulo of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). "It's difficult to track the chain of evidence we need to say for certain that the Virginiamycin in animals results in resistance to Synercid in humans. But we do believe the seeds for Synercid-resistant [bacteria] were planted on the farm, and are likely to blossom in hospitals."

Defenders of animal antibiotics say the scientific evidence linking Virginiamycin resistance in animals to Synercid resistance in humans remains inconclusive, and that animal antibiotics in general pose no immediate danger to people. Studies have found Synercid resistance in 1 percent to 4 percent of humans tested, they point out, and that is far below the rate of Virginiamycin resistance found in animals.

"We're not at all convinced, based on the data, that Virginiamycin is the cause of the Synercid resistance, however minimal, in the human population," said Carl Johnson of Pfizer Inc., which developed Virginiamycin and later sold the rights to Synercid to Aventis Pharmaceuticals. "We believe it is coming from hospital use."

Others see a need for immediate action. In Europe, officials have already banned the farm use of Virginiamycin and three other growth-promoting antibiotics, following recommendations from the World Health Organization. Legislation to impose a similar ban in the United States was introduced in Congress last year by Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). And consumer and public health groups petitioned the FDA last year to stop the use of any drugs used as animal growth promoters that are also used to treat diseases in people.

In response, the FDA is trying to fully understand and quantify the risk to humans posed by antibiotic use in animals, and will undertake a formal risk assessment of Synercid and Virginiamycin this spring.

"Experts are saying they're seeing resistance to Synercid, and that it must be coming from the animal use of Virginiamycin," said Sharon Thompson of the FDA's Center of Veterinary Medicine. "That is exactly the concern we are looking at. We're collecting information now and there will be a thorough review."

More than a year ago, the FDA proposed new guidelines to limit the spread of antibiotic resistance, and late last year claimed authority to require drug companies to prove any new animal antibiotics won't dangerously increase antibiotic resistance in humans. In the future, FDA officials said, the agency will also review some animal antibiotics already on the market, and will require new testing and new standards for those closely related to vital human antibiotics.

The FDA's actions have left drugmakers and livestock producers worried and angry. They say that animal antibiotics have been safe and very useful for decades, and that farmers need them to keep their animals healthy and growing as fast as they can. Without them, American meat and poultry would not be as safe from disease-causing organisms, and prices would rise as well, they say. And they complain that the FDA has already imposed a "de facto moratorium" on new animal antibiotics while the proposed guidelines are debated.

The FDA "is adding new requirements for resistance information never asked for in the past, and almost impossible to actually gather now," said Richard Carnevale of the Animal Health Institute, which represents pharmaceutical companies that supply farm drugs.

"In essence, we can't get products approved because we can't learn what we have to prove," he said. "One company has been working for more than a year on a protocol [to test antibiotic resistance], and the FDA is never satisfied and just tells them to keep tweaking."

Carnevale asserted that the FDA slowdown in animal antibiotic approvals has discouraged drug companies from investing in the costly development of new antibiotics for humans, too.

Livestock growers also are fighting efforts to limit antibiotic use. They consider the medications essential to their business, and are rushing as well to protect the FDA from what they consider to be nonscientific influences.

"Unlike Europe, we want to make sure decisions are based on science alone here," said Gary M. Weber of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. "At this point, we don't see any evidence of an identifiable problem regarding antibiotic resistance from animal feed. And in the absence of good science showing that, we think it would be a real blunder to ban or limit its use."

The European Union asserts that governments can take action when they believe a health danger is present, even if it cannot be scientifically proven at the time. But the U.S. Trade Representative has opposed the ban--supporting the U.S. industry position that the risks of animal antibiotics have not been scientifically assessed--and has threatened to take its case to the World Trade Organization.

Researchers agree that many aspects of antibiotic resistance remain unresolved. But they say that more precise methods of studying bacteria on the molecular level have recently allowed them to demonstrate that resistant forms of at least two common bacteria--campylobacter and salmonella--are being passed from animals to humans. These organisms have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics known as fluoroquinolones--which include the most widely used antibiotic to treat food-borne infections, Ciprofloxacin.

Researchers found that chicken treated with fluoroquinolones were being colonized by campylobacter bacteria resistant to the drug, and that those bacteria were being passed to humans. An FDA-commissioned risk assessment concluded in December that at least 5,000 Americans will suffer longer bouts of campylobacter food poisoning annually because of fluoroquinolone resistance passing from chicken to people.

The threat from Synercid-resistant bacteria is potentially greater, because the drug generally is used to control infections when a patient's immune system is already severely compromised--during organ transplants and chemotherapy, for instance. But the pathway from Virginiamycin resistance in animals to Synercid resistance in humans is more complex than with campylobacter or salmonella.

Virginiamycin in feed produces resistance in bacteria called enterococci, which inhabit the intestines of humans and animals. They generally do not cause disease, and so there is no inherent risk involved with their development of antibiotic resistance. They can, however, become very dangerous if their resistance transfers to other enterococci that inhabit human wounds, catheter infections and other hospital-acquired contagions. Synercid was approved to attack a dangerous form of enterococci resistant to the antibiotic that used to be doctors' last resort, Vancomycin.

Researchers believe that animal resistance to Virginiamycin is appearing as Synercid resistance in those now very dangerous enterococci. But the scientific debate over this is fierce, and the newest scientific methods have not conclusively traced Synercid resistance in humans from Virginiamycin resistance in animals.

"The Synercid story is just starting to play out," said J. Glenn Morris of the University of Maryland in Baltimore, a specialist in the field. "We know we have a major problem on our hands in terms of antibiotic resistance in our hospitals. The question about Synercid is whether we'll act to protect it now, or just accept the risk that it and other important antibiotics may become ineffective sooner because of this animal use."

Drugs in the Food Chain

Farm animals treated with low levels of antibiotics are developing drug-resistant forms of bacteria, posing potential health risks in humans.

Resistant infections

Researchers are concerned that animals fed the antibiotic Virginiamycin are passing along antibiotic-resistant forms of enterococci (shown) to humans.

Possible health risks

Food poisoning

Bacteria from farm animals, such as salmonella and campylobacter, have been causing antibiotic-resistant cases of food poisoning in people.

SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3717.cfm

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm


http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/

meepins must be an employee of some huge bloodsucking corporation.bye your food at local farmers markets,the grocery chains are becoming mcdonalds.

Or

http://www.rentatroll.com/rent-a-troll.gif

www.rentatroll.com

:wah: :sifone: :popcorn:

I've already told you your links are of no interest to me. It's typical of you to pretend you haven't got shot down and run on to something else. We were talking about nuking vegetables making them toxic.
Somehow after proving what you posted was mis-information, you have worked out that I'm the troll. That's an impressive delusion you've got going on there fellah.

I only eat things I kill and have sex with.

I've already told you your links are of no interest to me. It's typical of you to pretend you haven't got shot down and run on to something else. We were talking about nuking vegetables making them toxic.
Somehow after proving what you posted was mis-information, you have worked out that I'm the troll. That's an impressive delusion you've got going on there fellah.

OMG!!!

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

That is the organization along with WHO and the FDA and FAO that make the decisions for this type of standard to be put in place. How can you say you have done any research, if you refuse to look at the one of the sources where the information in coming from in the first place.

http://www.healthalternatives2000.com/food-supply-report.html

How Does Radiation Penetrate Our Food Supply?

There are two major commercial uses of radiation as it relates to food preparation in the world today. They are microwave ovens and irradiated food. There is also a third way in which radiation can penetrate our food supply - radioactive fallout. Let's take these subjects one at a time.
Microwave Cooking

Heating food in a microwave oven is very convenient but recent studies have shown that it may not only impact the nutrition of the food, it also may be dangerous to those who eat the food.

According to an announcement about infant bottles from the University of Minnesota in 1989 "Heating the bottle in a microwave can cause slight changes in the milk. In infant formulas, there may be a loss of some vitamins. In expressed breast milk, some protective properties may be destroyed." (Expressed breast milk is that which has been mechanically pumped by the mother.)

According to research, cooking food in a microwave may alter the physical make up of the food. It is known that the irradiation process breaks up the molecular structure of food and creates a whole new set of chemicals, known as unique radiolytic products (URPs). These URPs include benzene, formaldehyde and a host of known mutagens and carcinogens. This fact alone has obviously caused considerable controversy over the potential hazards of eating irradiated foods of any kind.

A study performed by Dr Hans Hertel of Switzerland found that food prepared in microwave ovens not only altered the food, it also altered the blood chemistry of those eating it. When his findings were released, a lawsuit was brought against him by the Association of Dealers for Electroapparatuses for Households and Industry. He was prohibited by the court from saying that food prepared in microwave ovens is dangerous to health - so much for freedom of speech. He is in the process of appealing that decision.

Microwaving food in plastic containers runs the additional risk of the food absorbing dangerous chemicals released when the plastic is bombarded and heated by radiation. While the subject of the dangers of using microwave ovens is still controversial, I recommend not using them at all.
Food Irradiation

Food irradiation is a process whereby the food is exposed to high levels of radiation in order to kill insects, bacteria and mold, and make the food last longer on the store shelves. Although the idea of radiating food sounds quite unappetizing to most people, it has been practiced in the USA since the 1960's, when the Food & Drug Administration approved the irradiation of wheat and white potatoes. During the 1980s, the FDA approved petitions for irradiation of spices and seasonings, pork, fresh fruits, and dry or dehydrated substances. Poultry received approval in 1990. The FDA approved irradiation for red meat in 1997.

The type of radiation used to irradiate foods is gamma energy, because gamma rays do not create radioactive particles. "Meltdown" and chain reactions do not occur, and the irradiated foods and their packaging are apparently not made radioactive. The gamma energy penetrates the food and its packaging, but most of the energy simply passes through the food, similar to the way microwaves pass through food, leaving no residue. The small amount of energy that does not pass through the food is negligible and is retained as heat.

Radiation is basically energy moving through space in invisible waves. The nature of the energy is defined by the wavelength of the energy. As the wavelength gets shorter, the energy of the wave increases. Microwaves have a relatively long wavelength so they have lower energy; strong enough to move molecules and cause heat through friction, and maybe strong enough to structurally change atoms in the molecules. Radiation from gamma rays or X-rays has a shorter wavelength and therefore higher energy. This type of radiation definitely has enough energy to change atoms, and changing the atoms is what kills most of the bacteria in the food.

However, studies have shown that irradiating microorganisms like E. coli and salmonella may give rise to even more dangerous, radiation-resistant strains of bacteria. Under laboratory conditions scientists found that one particular type of bacteria can survive a radiation dose five times what the FDA will allow for beef. In tests, scientists exposed this bacterium to enough radiation to kill a person several thousand times over; the bacteria survived. Before you get a false sense of security from the idea that food irradiation makes food much safer to eat - radiation is completely ineffective against viruses, and does absolutely nothing to clean the food of waste products and other unsanitary matter often left on beef, chicken, and lamb as the result of filthy and inhumane slaughterhouse conditions.

Worldwide, 38 countries permit irradiation of food, and more than 28 billion pounds of food is irradiated annually in Europe. The United States has 40 licensed irradiation facilities, and while most are used to sterilize medical and pharmaceutical supplies, 16 of the facilities also irradiate spices for wholesale use, and several other facilities irradiate other food products. Currently, the US government is proposing hundreds of food irradiation facilities around the country. Each facility will contain as much radiation as that which was released at Chernobyl. Inherent with that are some serious safety issues, from highly toxic waste disposal to the danger of accidental release of the radiation into the atmosphere.

In studies done on malnourished children by the National Institute of Nutrition at the Council of Medical Research in Hyderabad, India, blood tests showed chromosome damage after being fed freshly irradiated wheat for six weeks. Children fed a similar but un-irradiated diet did not show damage. When the children were taken off the irradiated diet the condition gradually went away.
Irradiation Destroys Nutrition

From a nutritional aspect, irradiation of food destroys essential vitamins and minerals, including: vitamin A, thiamine, B2, B3, B6, B12, folic acid, C, E, and K. Amino acid and essential polyunsaturated fatty acid content may also be affected. A 20 to 80 percent loss of any of these is not uncommon. It also kills friendly bacteria and enzymes, effectively rendering the food "dead" and therefore useless to the body. In the words of Donald R Louria Ph.D., Chairman of the Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health for the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, "The supporters of food irradiation treat the potential damage to the nutrient value of food as if it were unimportant or nonexistent. That is a major mistake. If the nutrient value of food is reduced, then the argument for food irradiation prolonging shelf life is undercut. Surely, it would not make sense to prolong shelf life if the foods are nutritionally defective." Dr. Louria has a point: even if testing showed that irradiated food was 'safe', it has already been shown to lack nutritional value.

One good thing is that in the United States, food growers and manufacturers must mention on the label that the food is irradiated, so avoidance of irradiated foods is possible if one shops carefully. However, if you eat out at a restaurant you will not know whether you are eating irradiated food, as they are not obliged to reveal that information.

It is clear that food irradiation has not been adequately tested on humans, and the negative implications are apparent: potential nuclear accidents resulting in radiation leaks, more nuclear waste to dispose of, mutating bacteria, carcinogenic substances and depleted nutritional value of the food irradiated.
Unsafe Facilities

The firm Radiation Sterilizers, Inc. (RSI) got 252 twenty-one-inch canisters of cesium-137 - which were never designed for use at an irradiation facility - from the Department of Energy, and in 1988, began using them to irradiate spices. After only two years, a cesium capsule began leaking into RSI's storage pool. It took federal officials six months to even find the source of the leak. Contaminated workers took the poison home with them. In 1992, the building was abandoned and RSI took the word "radiation" out of its name. The company is now called "SteriGenics." As a result of the leak and the bungled investigation, seventy thousand medical supply containers and milk cartons were recalled as they had been exposed to radiation. Ten employees were also exposed, three of whom "had enough on them that they contaminated other surfaces" including materials in their homes and cars, according to Jim Setser at the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
Over-irradiation

While there are regulations governing the amount of radiation that can be applied to foods, in practice it is possible that irradiated foods will get higher doses than those permitted. In a petition to the FDA to allow higher irradiation doses for spices, R. L. Hall, Vice President of the spice maker, McCormick & Company, Inc., stated, "In existing large-scale irradiators, it is quite likely that an overdose of up to 25O% can be expected."

The first food irradiation facility in the United States was Vindicator Inc., now called Food Technology Service Inc. in Mulberry Florida. It began irradiating foods in 1991. In August of 2000, Pegasus Foods Canada Inc, a Canadian food company filed a suit against Food Technology Service Inc., claiming the plant over-irradiated its sockeye salmon and cost it more than $2 million. The lawsuit accuses Food Technology Service of "over-irradiation," causing "color change, offensive odor and rendering the product unfit for human consumption."

http://www.purefood.org/irrad/irradfaq.cfm

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/foodsafety/food_irrad/articles.cfm?ID=1386

On top of that top executives on The Monsanto Company work (some even back forth) At the FDA so that things will get approved with no real testing. Here's a short list

David W. Beier . . .former head of Government Affairs for
Genentech, Inc., . . .now chief domestic policy advisor to Al
Gore, Vice President of the United States.

Linda J. Fisher . . .former Assistant Administrator of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Pollution Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, . . .then
became Vice President of Government and Public Affairs for
Monsanto Corporation and now (2001) is Deputy Director
of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Michael A. Friedman, M.D. . . former acting commissioner of
the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Department of Health and Human Services . . .now senior
vice-president for clinical affairs at G. D. Searle & Co., a
pharmaceutical division of Monsanto Corporation.

L. Val Giddings . . . former biotechnology regulator and
(biosafety) negotiator at the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA/APHIS), . . .now Vice President for Food &
Agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).

Marcia Hale . . . former assistant to the President of the
United States and director for intergovernmental affairs, . .
.now Director of International Government Affairs for Monsanto
Corporation.

Michael (Mickey) Kantor. . . former Secretary of the United
States Department of Commerce and former Trade
Representative of the United States, . . .now member of the
board of directors of Monsanto Corporation.

Josh King . . . former director of production for White House
events, . . . now director of global communication in the
Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.

Terry Medley . . . former administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States
Department of Agriculture, former chair and vice-chair of the
United States Department of Agriculture Biotechnology Council,
former member of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
food advisory committee, . . . and now Director of Regulatory
and External Affairs of Dupont Corporation's Agricultural
Enterprise.

Margaret Miller . . . former chemical laboratory supervisor for
Monsanto, . . .now Deputy Director of Human Food Safety and
Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office,
Center for Veterinary Medicine in the United States Food and
Drug Administration (FDA).*

Michael Phillips . . . recently with the National Academy of
Science Board on Agriculture . . . now head of regulatory affairs
for the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

William D. Ruckelshaus . . . former chief administrator of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), . .
.now (and for the past 12 years) a member of the board of
directors of Monsanto Corporation.

Michael Taylor . . . former legal advisor to the United States
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Bureau of Medical
Devices and Bureau of Foods, later executive assistant to the
Commissioner of the FDA, . . . still later a partner at the law
firm of King & Spaulding where he supervised a nine-lawyer
group whose clients included Monsanto Agricultural Company, .
. . still later Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the United
States Food and Drug Administration, . . . and later with the
law firm of King & Spaulding. . . . now head of the
Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.*

Lidia Watrud . . . former microbial biotechnology researcher at
Monsanto Corporation in St. Louis, Missouri, . . .now with the
United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental
Effects Laboratory, Western Ecology Division.

Jack Watson. . .former chief of staff to the President of the
United States, Jimmy Carter, . . .now a staff lawyer with
Monsanto Corporation in Washington, D.C.

Clayton K. Yeutter . . . former Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, former U.S. Trade Representative
(who led the U.S. team in negotiating the U.S. Canada Free
Trade Agreement and helped launch the Uruguay Round of the
GATT negotiations), now a member of the board of directors of
Mycogen Corporation, whose majority owner is Dow
AgroSciences, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical
Company.

Larry Zeph . . . former biologist in the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, . . . now Regulatory Science Manager at
Pioneer Hi-Bred International.

Source: http://www.purefood.org/Monsanto/revolvedoor.cfm

But like I said the don;t worry about the government loves you stay asleep...

You're funny, meepins. You remind me of that little nerdy kid at school who thinks he's smart, but isn't smart enough to see that he isn't.

'At low doses of radiation, nutrient losses are either not measurable or, if they can be measured, are not significant'

So you're changing your original clam from no effect to only a small effect? By changing your argument you make it obvious to all here that you yourself think your original claim was wrong.

Those dangerous cancer causing Radiolytics you are so worried about are the same as when you cook food.

Wrong again. Radiolytic compounds are those that are not created by conventional cooking methods. This is why they coined the term "radiolytic compounds".

I think you're getting confused because both cooking and irradiating food destroys nutrients and enzymes.

I can't speak for anyone else here but I'm going to keep cooking my food. If you ask me chicken just doesn't taste the same raw

The original topic is about raw foods such as fruits and vegetables that are typically consumed raw. You're the only one talking about flesh foods. Kindly stay on topic.

It must be those Jew bankers, those fuckers are everywhere trying to gives us cancer and take over the world!

I don't read those threads so I have no idea what your point is. But if you wish to believe in wild theories about Jewish bankers, then go ahead.

Why support irradiation you ask? Apparently it is a safe and efficient way of removing dangerous pathogens from food.

And now we come back to my original point. The pathogens are only in the food because of poor sanitary practises. Please state why you think it is better to irradiate food rather than clean up the sanitary conditions where food is harvested / prepared.

Basically you've got nothing, I have shown you are a gullible tard who has fallen for some very obvious mis-information.

Perhaps I missed your debunking of my claims. Here they are in summary form. Please show us all your intelligence by proving me wrong.

1. Food irradiation is a way for food producers with poor sanitary practises to continue those poor practises rather than clean them up.
2. Meepins' claims that irradiated food is "safe" and "has no effect on the nutritional content of food" are wrong.
3. Meepins isn't too bright.

Thanks again.