-
-
Limit on cold remedies for kids was FDA's idea
"When drug makers made a surprise announcement this week that they no longer recommend cough and cold remedies for youngsters under 4, they didn't let on that it was the government's idea.
And why age 4 rather than the age 6 that pediatricians' wanted?
Because the Food and Drug Administration suggested that, too.
FDA officials proposed the cutoff earlier this year in private discussions with the industry, government and industry officials confirmed Friday. The companies agreed, and this week announced they were "voluntarily" changing their advice to parents.
The maneuvering is an example of how government health officials and the industries they regulate seek to come to an accommodation behind the scenes on tricky issues. In this case, there is scant evidence that the widely used over-the-counter medicines really do work in children. Emergency-room data shows that they sicken some 7,000 kids a year, mostly because of overdoses.
"There is a delicate dance between how much legal authority the FDA has and their use of the bully pulpit for getting some sort of compromise," said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, Baltimore's health commissioner.
Sharfstein and other pediatricians have asked the FDA to ban the cold products for children under 6. A panel of independent advisers to the FDA strongly seconded that recommendation. But the agency took a different approach.
"The analysis that led to the under-4 cutoff was performed by FDA," said Rita Chappelle, a spokeswoman for the agency. "We suggested it, and then it was voluntarily adopted by industry. (They) did not come up with the proposal themselves."
Even now, however, the reasons for setting a cutoff specifically for kids under 4 remain unclear.
The FDA says it settled on age 4 after a careful data review and a vigorous internal debate. Officials said emergency room data shows that most of the problems with the drugs involve kids under 4. But the FDA refused to release the hospital data, which comes from a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And CDC said Friday it could not immediately supply a detailed breakdown.
Still, some of the FDA's independent advisers question the under-4 recommendation.
"There was no data suggesting that the drugs were effective in kids under 12," said Sean Hennessy, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania. "I don't see how that's a fully rational approach to the problem." "When drug makers made a surprise announcement this week that they no longer recommend cough and cold remedies for youngsters und... more -
US says LabCorp ovarian cancer test sales illegal - Reuters
Laboratory Corp of America is violating the law by selling an ovarian cancer screening test without regulatory approval, U.S. health officials said on Wednesday.
The OvaSure test does not fall in a category that can be sold without prior clearance from the agency, the Food and Drug Administration said.
"Because you do not have marketing clearance or approval from the FDA, marketing OvaSure is in violation of the law," the agency said in a letter dated Sept. 29.
The agency told the company to "take prompt action to correct these violations."
LabCorp spokesman Eric Lindblom said the company was "disappointed" by the letter.
"We are currently in discussions with the FDA over the next steps and of course we share the FDA's determination to assure patients are protected," he said.
The company started selling the blood test in June, saying it could detect early-stage ovarian cancer in high-risk women.
More than 21,000 women will be newly diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2008 and more than 15,000 women will die from the disease, according to American Cancer Society estimates.
The five-year survival rate is 92 percent if the cancer is caught before it spreads, but only about 19 percent of cases are detected at that stage.
When the cancer is discovered in advanced stages, five-year survival drops to 30 percent.
The OvaSure test was developed by researchers at Yale University. A study of high-risk and average-risk women found it was 95 percent accurate in detecting ovarian cancer, LabCorp said when it announced the product's launch in June. False positives occurred for 0.6 percent of women.
Some doctors have complained the test does not have enough data behind it to support routine use.
The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, in a statement issued in July, said "additional research is needed to validate the test's effectiveness before offering it to women outside of the context of a research study."
The FDA letter was posted on the FDA website here
LabCorp shares fell nearly 1.8 percent to close at $60.63 on the New York Stock Exchange. Laboratory Corp of America is violating the law by selling an ovarian cancer screening test without regulatory approval, U.S. health o... more -
Byetta Diabetes Drug Linked to Patient Deaths; Real Diabetes Cures Ignored
Another FDA-approved diabetes drug has now been linked to life-threatening pancreas inflammation that has resulted in at least two deaths. Byetta is the latest FDA-approved diabetes drug to be linked to organ damage and death. Another FDA-approved diabetes drug has now been linked to life-threatening pancreas inflammation that has resulted in at least two dea... more
-
Toxic Water Bottles?
A recent study found that high exposures to chemicals found in plastic water bottles could be harmful, but the FDA says otherwise. Who do you believe? A recent study found that high exposures to chemicals found in plastic water bottles could be harmful, but the FDA says otherwise. Wh... more
-
Psychological ADHD drugs should be last resort for children, study says.
Drugs such as Ritalin should be a last resort for treating children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and should never be prescribed to kids of preschool age, new guidelines suggest.
The new guidelines, issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom, recommend that parents and other caregivers receive training in the care and management of the disease as a first line of treatment.
If parental management proves ineffective for ADHD patients between the ages of 11 and 18, group or individual counselling should be the next option considered for treatment, the guidelines suggest.
"Drug treatment is not indicated as the first-line treatment for all school-age children and young people with ADHD," the guidelines say.
Treatment with Ritalin or other drugs, "should be reserved for those with severe symptoms and impairment," or for those who have refused or not responded to parent training or psychological treatment. Drugs such as Ritalin should be a last resort for treating children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and should never be ... more -
FDA Faulted for Lack of Produce Oversight
As food-safety problems continue to rock the United States, resulting in massive recalls, illness and even death, the federal Food and Drug Administration remains underfunded and understaffed to protect consumers, a new government report concludes.
The report, released Friday by the Congressional General Accountability Office (GAO), found that the FDA lacks the inspectors, staffers and scientists to safeguard the food supply, particularly fresh produce.
For instance, problems were detected at 41 percent of 2,002 produce plants inspected by the FDA between 2000 and 2007. Yet, in most cases, the agency relied on the plant owners to voluntarily correct the problems, according to the report. As food-safety problems continue to rock the United States, resulting in massive recalls, illness and even death, the federal Food and... more -
FDA Complicit in Pushing Prescription Drugs, Critics Say
A blueprint animation of an older man enjoying his day tells viewers that the arthritis drug Celebrex carries the same cardiovascular warnings as several common pain medications. The actress Sally Field says she "feels great" after taking Boniva, a drug to treat osteoporosis. A beaver and Abraham Lincoln escape a man?s dreams to chastise him for failing to take action for his sleep troubles, telling him, "We miss you."
Toolbox
Email to a Friend
Print-friendly Version
Add to My Morning Paper
Previous/Related Items
* FDA Looks to Renew Industry-Funded Review Process (Apr 5, 2007)
Consumer and health groups say prescription-drug advertisements like these are often deceitful, interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, and lead to unnecessary drug use.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does impose some requirements on pharmaceutical advertisements, such as mandatory risk information and supposedly prohibiting "false and misleading" messages. Though drug companies are required to submit their advertisements to the FDA, the agency does not review them before they are released to the public.
In fact, it?s not clear whether the FDA reviews most advertisements at all. The agency can direct drug companies to change their advertisements if it finds they violate regulations, but a Government Accountability Office report released last November found that the FDA reviews only a "small portion" of the advertisements it receives, and does not review them using the same, consistent criteria. The report said the GAO could not calculate the percentage of submissions reviewed because the FDA does not keep track of that information. A blueprint animation of an older man enjoying his day tells viewers that the arthritis drug Celebrex carries the same cardiovascular ... more -
Splenda is dangerous
New studies indicate Splenda may be harmful to your health. (Is anyone surprised?) "James Turner, chairman of the national consumer education group Citizens for Health expressed shock and outrage after reading a new report from scientists at Duke University. "The report makes it clear that the artificial sweetener Splenda and its key component sucralose pose a threat to the people who consume the product. Hundreds of consumers have complained to us about side effects from using Splenda and this study, published this past week in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A, confirms that the chemicals in the little yellow package should carry a big red warning label," said Turner. [continued at link]
In addition to the link above, visit http://www.splendakills.co.uk/ New studies indicate Splenda may be harmful to your health. (Is anyone surprised?) "James Turner, chairman of the national consum... more -
Codex Alimentarius, food, and Monsanto
The recent news regarding the FDA and irradiation of foods and their decision regarding genetically modified animals and crops is all related to the Codex Alimentarius.This video brings some of that to light to give people information about a global plan to control our food supply and work to weaken the effects of vitamins and supplements. It is information we all need to fight this and to protect our health and safety. The recent news regarding the FDA and irradiation of foods and their decision regarding genetically modified animals and crops is all ... more
-
FDA will not require labeling of genetically engineered animals sold as food
Consumers Union finds it "incomprehensible" that the FDA will not require labeling of genetically engineered animals that are sold as food. Genetically engineered animals may contain genetic material from entirely different species. For example mouse genes have been put into pigs to help them metabolize phosphorous more efficiently, and spider genes have been put into goats so that they produce spider silk in their milk.
FDA proposed today that they will only review genetically engineered animals for their safety as food, and will not require any labeling. "It is incomprehensible to us that FDA does not view these animals as different from their conventional counterparts, and therefore something that under law is required to be labeled," stated Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. "In our view, consumers have a right to know if the ham, bacon or pork chops they are buying come from pigs that have been engineered with mouse genes."
Consumers Union is also concerned that cows engineered to produce antibiotics in their milk, which can help the cow avoid udder infections, also will not be labeled. "Unlike conventional antibiotics, which must be cleared from the cow before it can be used to produce milk or meat, the antibiotic that is genetically engineered into the animal will always be present. We are concerned both about the potential safety and lack of labeling on such food products," stated Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Senior Scientist at Consumers Union.
________________
What are they hiding? Again, they cover for corporations to make them money. Again, you will not know what you are eating. A cow injected with a mouse gene on top of some tasty pus producing RGBH? Would you truly eat that meat if you knew that information? I am so sick of the FDA and all of these government agencies controlling our lives. Consumer disclosure is Democracy and they shouldn't have the right to "decide" if they will tell us or not. We have a right to know what we are paying good money for and what we are eating and feeding our children! Consumers Union finds it "incomprehensible" that the FDA will not require labeling of genetically engineered animals that ar... more -
China: Contaminated Integrity
BEIJING — China’s leaders scrambled Saturday to contain public dismay over widespread contamination of milk supplies, criticizing local officials for negligence while moving to tamp down criticism of the government’s response.
Officials promised to keep stores supplied with clean milk and set up medical hot lines nationwide to help people cope with one of the worst product safety scandals in years.
Milk and dairy products from 22 companies have been recalled after batches tainted with the industrial chemical melamine sickened more than 6,200 children and left four infants dead from kidney failure.
Trying to shore up public confidence, Premier Wen Jiabao told senior Communist Party members that official misconduct contributed to the milk contamination and earlier product scandals. He demanded they put public safety “at the top of the agenda.”
In a show of concern, Wen’s chief deputy made a highly publicized trip to a dairy region south of Beijing at the center of the scandal, visiting farms, shops and a hospital, where he urged “all-out efforts on medical treatment” for the sick.
The energetic response underscored the deep challenge the crisis poses for the communist leadership. The government has staked its legitimacy in part on competent management of a rapidly developing society, a reputation it hoped would be burnished by last month’s lavish, well-run Beijing Olympics.
But the post-Olympic accolades have been pushed aside, and the scandal is again baring widespread public skepticism about the government’s abilities to get lower level officials to enforce policies and overcome cover-ups of problems.
In the 10 days since the government revealed that Shijiazhuang Sanlu Group sold tainted milk powder and infant formula, sketchy details have exposed one local government cover-up as well as the sale of contaminated milk by China’s biggest dairies, many of them state-owned.
Recalls of Chinese-made dairy products widened Saturday to Japan, which followed the lead of Singapore, while more products were recalled in the self-governing Chinese territories of Hong Kong and Macau.
Seeking to rein in criticism, propaganda officials ordered newspapers, TV stations and Web sites to mainly use reports from the government’s official Xinhua News Agency, news employees at two publications reported.
Food and product safety scandals have been a feature of Chinese life. Only last year, the government promised to overhaul inspection procedures after exports of medicines, toys and other products that killed and sickend people in the United States.
Also last year, pet food contaminated with melamine killed thousands of pets in North and South America. The dangerous chemical in the pet food was the same as in the milk scandal -- melamine. Used in making plastics, melamine is high in nitrogen, which registers as protein in tests of milk.
Some of the farmers who sell milk to Chinese food companies are thought to have used melamine to disguise watered-down milk. BEIJING — China’s leaders scrambled Saturday to contain public dismay over widespread contamination of milk supplies, criticizing loca... more -
Milk from China isn't safe
China's food safety crisis widened Friday after the industrial chemical melamine was found in milk produced by three of the country's leading dairy companies prompting stores, including Starbucks, to yank milk from their shelves.
The recalls come as evidence is mounting that adding chemicals to watered-down milk was a widespread practice in China's dairy industry.
The crisis was initially thought to have been confined to tainted milk powder, used to make baby formula that has been blamed in the deaths of four infants and for sickening 6,200 other children.
But tests found melamine in samples of liquid milk taken from China's two largest dairy producers, Mengniu Dairy Group Co. and Yili Industrial Group Co., as well as Shanghai-based Bright Dairy. The chemical, which is used in plastics and fertilizers, can cause kidney stones and lead to kidney failure.
Suppliers trying to cut costs are believed to have added it to watered-down milk to cover up the resulting protein deficiency.
No tainted infant formula has turned up in the United States, where authorities have inspected more than 1,000 retail markets mainly serving Asian communities. China is an importer of liquid milk, so it's unlikely that milk from that country would have been shipped to the U.S.
But the Food and Drug Administration said it is stepping up inspections at ports as a precaution. Inspectors will be sampling bulk shipments of food ingredients from Asia that are derived from milk, such as milk powder and whey powder. The FDA also plans to issue a consumer alert warning people not to buy milk products from China on the Internet. China's food safety crisis widened Friday after the industrial chemical melamine was found in milk produced by three of the count... more -
Lipitor Mismarketed To Women
Lipitor has been the top-selling drug in the world and has accounted for over $12 billion in annual sales. It has been prescribed to both men and women to lower cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke in patients with common risk factors for heart disease.
However, a new study appearing in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies was unable to find high quality clinical evidence documenting reduced heart attack risk for women in a primary prevention context. Furthermore, advertising omits label information relevant to women.
Theodore Eisenberg of Cornell Law School and Martin T. Wells of Cornell University assembled studies for a meta analysis of drugs’ effects on cardiovascular risk, taking into account all relevant studies reporting risks for both men and women.
Not one of the studies that included women with a mixture of risk factors for heart attacks provided statistically significant support for prescribing Lipitor or other statins to protect against cardiovascular problems. Pfizer’s claims of clinical proof that Lipitor reduces risk of heart attack in patients with multiple risk factors for heart disease does not appear to be scientifically supported for large segments of the female population.
In addition, Lipitor’s advertising repeatedly fails to report that clinical trials were statistically significant for men but not for women. Unqualified advertising claims of protection against heart attacks may therefore be misleading. Pfizer’s advertising also does not disclose critical portions of the Lipitor FDA-approved label, which acknowledges the absence of evidence with respect to women.
“Our findings indicate that each year, reasonably healthy women spend billions of dollars on drugs in the hope of preventing heart attacks but that scientific evidence supporting their hope does not exist,” the authors conclude. Lipitor has been the top-selling drug in the world and has accounted for over $12 billion in annual sales. It has been prescribed to b... more -
FrankenChicken Is One Step Closer To Your Plate
FrankenChicken moved closer to your dinner table after the FDA announced they're going to begin developing the procedures and guidelines that will allow farmers to genetically engineer animals to have more desirable traits and then sell them to you in the supermarket. For instance, featherless chicken or faster-growing fish. They will not require food to be labeled as genetically modified as long as there's no change in the final product, a move Consumers Union called "incomprehensible."
(summary from Consumerist.com) FrankenChicken moved closer to your dinner table after the FDA announced they're going to begin developing the procedures and gui... more -
Genetically Engineered Food doesn't need Labels, says FDA
New rules proposed by federal regulators don't require consumer labeling of many genetically altered animals that are expected to soon reach grocery story shelves as meat, poultry, or seafood.
The proposed regulations govern a wide range of genetically altered animals, including some already under development and some that are expected to come to market in the next few years.
Biotech companies and livestock producers are keenly interested in DNA engineering as a way to breed larger or healthier animals for food, and also as a potential source of pharmaceuticals produced in milk or animal's blood.
FDA officials say they will require public hearings before companies can sell genetically modified animals as food to the public. They say the process would bring transparency to a form of food production that could make some consumers uneasy.
"We'll need to do a full evaluation of food and feed safety," says Randall Lutter, PhD, FDA's deputy commissioner for policy.
But the agency also says producers would not be required to label most genetically engineered meat, poultry, or seafood. The rules treat altered DNA inserted into livestock as drugs. Companies are not required to alert consumers when antibiotics, hormones, or other drugs are used in raising the animals.
"There is no special labeling requirement simply because the animal itself was engineered," Lutter says.
One exception is if genetic engineering alters the makeup of food. For example, companies are developing DNA that causes pigs to produce more omega-3 fatty acids in their muscles. Officials say the proposed rules would require a label indicating the product as high in the fatty acids, but not that it is genetically modified.
"The labeling will be based on the changes in the composition of the product," Lutter told reporters during a conference call.
The decision does not affect cloned animals or their offspring, which earlier this year were declared safe as a food source by the FDA.
Michael Hansen, PhD, senior scientist at Consumers Union, praised the requirement of public hearings before genetically altered animals are sold as food.
"It is positive that unlike with [genetically engineered] plants, they are going to require a safety assessment," he tells WebMD.
But Hansen criticizes the agency for taking what he says was a lax approach toward consumer labeling of such products.
"It's outrageous that they would not require these things to be labeled. Come on, they require orange juice to be labeled if it's from a concentrate vs. fresh-squeezed. Milk is labeled homogenized vs. not. That's enough to label, but an engineered animal isn't?" he says.
The Biotechnology Industry Organization, an industry group, says it supports the proposed rule.
"Animals that are genetically engineered can have improved food production capabilities, enabling them to help meet the global demand for more efficient, more nutritious, higher quality and lower-cost sources of food," says Barbara Glenn, PhD, the group's managing director for animal biotechnology.
Dozens of genetically altered animals are under development. For example, researchers at the University of Illinois are experimenting with cow DNA that increases hormone production in the milk of pig sows. The hormone can cause piglets to grow faster and reach a higher body weight.
Researchers are also developing genes for pigs so their waste contains less phosphorus, an environmental pollutant. Genes from spiders can even get goats to produce spider silk in their milk for use in bullet-proof vests. New rules proposed by federal regulators don't require consumer labeling of many genetically altered animals that are expected to... more -
Genetically engineered meat could be on the table after U.S. review
After more than seven years of discussion, the Food and Drug Administration Thursday proposed regulations that would allow the commercial use of genetically engineered animals.
Such animals are genetically altered — their genes are either changed or genes from another animal are added — for a specific purpose. The FDA states that such animals either produce drugs; serve as models for human disease; produce industrial or consumer products, such as fiber; or have improved food-use qualities, such as being more nutritious.
The only genetically engineered creature available for sale in the USA is an aquarium fish that glows in the dark. Examples currently in the laboratory stage include:
•Salmon that grow more quickly and efficiently.
•Goats that produce drugs in their milk or blood.
•Chickens that produce drugs in the whites of their eggs.
•Cows that cannot get the brain-wasting mad cow disease.
•Pigs engineered to make their organs transplantable into humans without rejection.
•Hypoallergenic dogs and cats.
The proposed regulations would require FDA review of each application to ensure that any food sold for human consumption is safe and that the animal's health would not be damaged in the process.
Each use would have to be approved separately, so a goat that made insulin in its milk would be one application. That same goat engineered to also be resistant to udder infections would be another.
It's expected that once a company creates an animal with the exact right genetic makeup, more animals would be made by cloning to preserve the genetics.
While the potential is huge, the actual number of groups working on animals like this is small, says Jaydee Hanson from the non-profit Center for Food Safety. "You're talking maybe five or so companies and 10 or so universities."
The FDA will take public comment until Nov. 18, then finalize the regulations. After more than seven years of discussion, the Food and Drug Administration Thursday proposed regulations that would allow the commerc... more -
Are Plastic Water Bottles Safe?
At a scientific hearing, the Food and Drug Administration defended its assessment that bisphenol A_ or BPA_is safe, even as the first major study of health effects in people linked it with possible risks for heart disease and diabetes. The debate could drag on for years.
"Right now, our tentative conclusion is that it's safe, so we're not recommending any change in habits," said Laura Tarantino, head of the FDA's office of food additive safety. But she acknowledged, "there are a number of things people can do to lower their exposure."
For example, consumers can avoid plastic containers imprinted with the recycling number '7,' as many of those contain BPA. Or, said Tarantino, they can avoid warming food in such containers, as heat helps to release the chemical.
More than 90 percent of Americans have traces of BPA in their bodies, but the FDA says the levels of exposure are too low to pose a health risk, even for infants and children.
However, a study released Tuesday by the Journal of the American Medical Association suggested a new concern about BPA. Because of the possible public health implications, the results "deserve scientific follow-up," the study authors said. Using a health survey of nearly 1,500 adults, they found that those exposed to higher amounts of BPA were more likely to report having heart disease and diabetes.
But the study is preliminary, far from proof that the chemical caused the health problems. Two Dartmouth College analysts of medical research said it raises questions but provides no answers about whether the ubiquitous chemical is harmful.
FDA officials said they are not dismissing such findings, and conceded that further research is needed. "We recognize the need to resolve the concerning questions that have been raised," said Tarantino. But the FDA is arguing that the studies with rats and mice it relied on for its assessment are more thorough than some of the human research that has raised doubts. At a scientific hearing, the Food and Drug Administration defended its assessment that bisphenol A_ or BPA_is safe, even as the first ... more -
New US law requires labels on meat-country of origin labels now required
WASHINGTON - In a few weeks, American shoppers will be able to look at a cut of meat or a pound of hamburger and see something they've never seen before-a label that says where the meat came from.
Starting Sept. 30, food manufacturers and grocery stores have to comply with a new federal law that requires "Country of Origin Labeling," or COOL, on beef, pork, chicken and lamb.
The new labels will tell consumers whether their food came from animals raised in the U.S. or another country. The law also covers perishable items, such as fruits and vegetables and a variety of nuts. Some say this will enable consumers to avoid food that, for example, comes from countries that they have heard have food safety problems. It also will allow consumers to stick to American-grown food, if that is their preference.
Because of the complexities of the livestock industry, some product labels may list multiple countries. That's especially true of ground beef, because some meat processors combine cuts from a number of countries to make ground meat and hamburger patties.
Food safety groups have hailed COOL as a necessary step toward broader consumer education and buying choices. But now they complain that the Department of Agriculture has defined it as narrowly as possible.
For example, they say, the agency has defined a host of foods as "processed," such as mixed frozen vegetables, which exempts them from the new law.
"When they finalized this rule, they bent over backward to make as few things be covered as possible," said Michael Hansen, a senior staff scientist with Consumers Union. "There are giant, giant loopholes in the law."
Many in the meat industry, these advocates say, have fought the new labeling law because they don't want consumers to know that they're buying imported hamburger and beef cuts. The USDA also stood against COOL, according to Lloyd Day, head of the agency's Agricultural Marketing Service, because of its projected impact on consumers and its estimated cost to the food industry: $2.5 billion in the first year.
But Congress has decreed that COOL will take effect on Sept. 30, so the debate over its merits is largely over. Now the industry is bracing for COOL's impact.
"We don't know exactly how it's all going to work," said Colin Woodall, the executive director of legislative affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. "And we won't know until it's fully up and running."
__________________
I'm sure there are loopholes to this especially where $$$ are concerned, but at least there is a law calling for country of origin labels on meat. I personally don't eat meat any longer, but for those who do, look for it on your labels starting Sept. 30th. Now we have to keep fighting to get the source of the food noted on labels as in genetically modified versus conventional. Then we will be making progress in full disclosure to consumers. WASHINGTON - In a few weeks, American shoppers will be able to look at a cut of meat or a pound of hamburger and see something they�... more -
Almond growers sue USDA to halt mandatory fumigation of raw almonds
After having their organic almond businesses devastated by the USDA's bizarre decision requiring mandatory chemical fumigation of almonds, the almond industry is fighting back. Fifteen American almond growers have filed a lawsuit against the USDA in an attempt to repeal the requirements that all almonds grown in California be fumigated or pasteurized. (Virtually all almonds sold in the United States are grown in California.)
Since the USDA's ruling in 2007, organic almond growers in California have been economically devastated by the mandatory fumigation of almonds. Because USDA rules don't apply to almonds being imported from other countries, however, the industry has seen a huge shift away from U.S. growers and towards almond growers in Spain and other countries. Some American almond farmers have even called the USDA's decision "a plan to destroy the U.S. almond industry and put small organic farmers out of business."
The USDA's plot to deceive consumers over "raw"
The mandatory almond fumigation requirement is seen by health-conscious consumers as not merely bizarre, but downright fraudulent. That's because the USDA's regulations allow fumigated and pasteurized almonds to be labeled "raw," thereby intentionally deceiving the consuming public and instantly destroying consumer trust in the labeling of all almonds.
By any honest measure, the people making these decisions at the USDA can only be described as either idiotic or criminal. To enforce regulations requiring the intentional mislabeling of raw food seems more like the actions of a criminal racket than a government agency. While online pharmacies selling mislabeled pharmaceuticals are routinely raided and shut down by U.S. authorities, when the government itself engages in similar deceptions, it declares itself above the law and immune to prosecution.
This lawsuit by U.S. almonds growers aims to overturn the USDA's deception. These fraudulent actions on the part of the USDA have generated an enormous amount of criticism from the raw food community, whose members depend on almonds to make raw almond milk, raw almond "burgers" and other raw foods preparations. As leaders of the raw foods movement rightly insist, fumigating or pasteurizing nuts destroys as much as 90 percent of their original nutritional value, altering proteins and destroying disease-fighting phytonutrients. The USDA, however, remains remarkably illiterate on this topic, have never made a single statement acknowledging any qualitative difference between cooked foods and raw foods.
__________
However, the USDA doesn't require this of almonds imported from other countries, only the almonds grown here, mostly from California. Why does the USDA seem to hate the American farmer so much? GM foods, irradiation, and now this. If I didn't know any better, I would say they were out to destroy the livelihoods of American farmers. And again, we have the deceptive description regarding pasteurized nuts as raw with a lack of scientific backup. Is there no end to it? After having their organic almond businesses devastated by the USDA's bizarre decision requiring mandatory chemical fumigation of... more -
China launches nationwide baby formula probe
China's government vowed "serious punishment" on Friday after a major dairy recalled 700 tons of milk powder linked to a rash of kidney stones in infants in a case that reignited fears about Chinese product safety.
U.S. authorities warned American consumers to avoid all Chinese infant formula. A New Zealand company that owns a stake in the Chinese producer said it believed none of the powder was exported from China.
Sanlu Group Co., China's biggest milk powder producer, ordered the recall after more than 50 babies suffered kidney stones and one died, the official Xinhua News Agency said. It said tests found it was tainted with melamine, a chemical used in plastics.
Melamine is the chemical involved in a massive pet food recall last year. It is not supposed to be added to food, but suppliers in China sometimes mix it in to make food appear to be high in protein. Melamine is nitrogen rich, and standard tests for protein in bulk food ingredients measure levels of nitrogen.
The Health Ministry launched a nationwide investigation, ordering local officials to report all possible cases and "is urgently organizing experts to conduct research and treatment," a ministry statement said.
Fonterra Co-operative Group, a New Zealand dairy farmers' group that owns 43% of Sanlu, said it was advised the company had a "quality issue in its products as a result of receiving defective milk in China."
The milk powder is sold in China under the name Sanlu Bei Bei Infant Powder.
"Those responsible will face serious punishment," said a Health Ministry spokesman, Mao Qunan, quoted by Xinhua. The agency said investigators concluded the chemical was added when the milk was purchased from farmers but gave no other details. It said 78 "suspicious people" were summoned for questioning.
Sanlu Group Co., China's biggest milk powder producer, ordered the recall after more than 50 babies suffered kidney stones and one died, the official Xinhua News Agency said. It said tests found it was tainted with melamine, a chemical used in plastics.
"Those responsible will face serious punishment," said a Health Ministry spokesman, Mao Qunan, quoted by Xinhua. The agency said investigators concluded the chemical was added when the milk was purchased from farmers but gave no other details. It said 78 "suspicious people" were summoned for questioning.
In Washington, the Food and Drug Administration warned consumers to avoid infant formula from China. Authorities said Chinese formula is not approved for importation into the United States but might be sold at ethnic grocery stores.
"We're concerned that there may be some infant formula that may have gotten into the United States illegally and may be on the ethnic market," said Janice Oliver, deputy director of the FDA's food safety program. China's government vowed "serious punishment" on Friday after a major dairy recalled 700 tons of milk powder linked to ... more
-
related topics
FDA
Contributors (404)
FDA
