Not many consumers realize that the FDA does not require genetically modifiedfood to be labeled.

That’s because the FDA has decided that you, dear consumer, don’t care if the tomato you’re eating has been cross bred with frog genes to render the tomato more resistant to cold weather.

Some consumers may not be concerned with eating Frankenfood, but for those who are, here’s how to determine if the fruits and vegetables you’re buying are (GM) genetically modified.

Hat tip to Marion Owen for her valuable information. Here’s how it works:

For conventionally grown fruit, (grown with chemicals inputs), the PLU codeon the sticker consists of four numbers. Organically grown fruit has a five-numeral PLU prefaced by the number 9.

Genetically engineered (GM) fruit has a five-numeral PLU prefaced by the number 8.

For example:

A conventionally grown banana would be: 4011

An organic banana would be: 94011

A genetically engineered (GE or GMO) banana would be: 84011

These tips are specially important now that over 80% of all processed foods in the US are genetically modified.

Many countries in the European Union have beenbanning GM products and produce (including Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg).

We say “Eat healthy, buy or grow organic”. (Read more)

Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration. . . .

A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.

Now the EFSA verdict has been turned into an EU directive which was issued on Wednesday.

Ukip MEP Paul Nuttall said the ruling made the “bendy banana law” look “positively sane”.

He said: “I had to read this four or five times before I believed it. It is a perfect example of what Brussels does best. Spend three years, with 20 separate pieces of correspondence before summoning 21 professors to Parma where they decide with great solemnity that drinking water cannot be sold as a way to combat dehydration.

“Then they make this judgment law and make it clear that if anybody dares sell water claiming that it is effective against dehydration they could get into serious legal bother. (Read more)

The August 3, 2011, shakedown of the Rawesome food cooperative in Venice, California, in spite of the tragic outcome, has produced one positive result. The ruthless raid on the part of miscellaneous government agencies has sparked a wave of unprecedented discord over the question, How can government dictate what we choose to eat when we each have unique standards for good nutrition?

This federalista blitzkrieg came at a time when raw milk alarmism had reached an all-time high. The folks who wish to banish raw milk can’t leave the issue alone, and instead they have ramped up a cacophonous crusade against one of nature’s glories. Day after day, articles and news bits appear in the mainstream media, full of fear mongering and panic-producing propaganda in regard to the safety of raw milk.

A July 2011 article on Dairyherd.com has some interesting survey results on comparative raw-milk regulations on a state-by-state basis. To summarize, 30 states allow consumers to transact with raw-milk producers while 20 states prohibit that act of freedom. And don’t forget that federal laws prevent the sale of any raw milk over state lines. The federal government’s response to the good white stuff moving over state lines is to send in armed soldiers in full battle gear to seize and destroy.

Thirteen mini-regimes across the United States allow the sale of raw milk on the farm where it was produced, while four of those thirteen allow only “incidental occurrences,” with that being defined as “occasional sales, not as a regular course of business; no advertising.” Surely, the feds can interpret “occasional” and “regular” and “advertising” in a whole host of capricious ways. After all, it is the use of arbitrary laws with a host of potential interpretations that enables the feds to conduct their criminal operations that consist of seizing product and regulating small producers out of business.

Four of those 13 states only allow raw goat milk while Kentucky and Rhode Island — now get this — require a prescription from a physician! Of course, you can interpret that to mean raw milk must be medicinal (ask moms who remedy their child’s allergies with raw milk), but then again, there’s no such thing as a Big Milk Pharma that exists as a corporate arm of the state to keep its products available for the masses. Lastly, 11 states allow raw milk to be sold in retail stores outside of the farm.

. . . .

In a recent edition of the Atlantic, an article was published that does a solid job of covering the Rawesome food-club raid and its aftermath. The Atlantic writer, Ari LeVaux, compares the Rawesome raid by federal and local agencies to the contamination of 36 million pounds of Cargill ground turkey (one tally is 77 known ill people, 1 dead). Rawesome was raided, trashed, and shut down, and meanwhile, Cargill executives were analyzing the costs of a recall vs. the potential for negative publicity from the tainted meat so they could voluntarily decide whether or not to recall the product.

LeVaux went on to say that food freedom in America is vanishing. A quote from the end of the article states the following: “This is the state of food freedom in America today: It’s being sacrificed in the name of food safety.” But this is not about safety. These raids that are hostile to food choice are about

– seizing power, which benefits federal and local governments and provides justification for their continued growth through the looting of taxpayers;
– eliminating the competition for the rent-seeking corporate state, meaning the big business–big government alliance;
– displaying the omnipotent power of the enforcement state (militarized police and federal/state agencies); and
– affirming rejection of any individual’s right to self-ownership, and thus making the case that we are subjects to be ruled, including our behaviors and personal lifestyle choices.

The FDA is, in desperation, trying to influence consumers against raw milk. Even so, sales of raw milk keep increasing and new consumers come into the market. Since the FDA does not have the power to regulate intrastate commerce, it is up to the states to regulate raw milk. The FDA’s job, then, is to apply pressure on states to restrict or ban the sale of raw milk.

The fear mongering over the dangers of raw milk is rooted in government–special interest propaganda with no basis in facts or science. In the interest of alarming the populace, the prohibition campaign has portrayed the decision to drink raw milk as a public danger rather than a personal choice. In response, Ted Beals, MD, delivered a presentation at the Third International Raw Milk Symposium in Bloomington, Minnesota, in May 2011, where he delivered these remarks:

From the perspective of a national public health professional looking at an estimated total of 48 million foodborne illnesses each year; or from the perspective of a healthcare professional looking at a total of 90,771 (data from Healthy People 20204) confirmed bacterial foodborne infections each year (about 0.2 percent), there is no rational justification to focus national attention on raw milk, which may be associated with an average of 42 illnesses maximum among the more than nine million people (about 0.0005 percent) who have chosen to drink milk in its fresh unprocessed form.

Using this average of 42 illnesses per year, we can show, using government figures, that you are about 35,000 times more likely to become ill from other foods than you are from raw milk.

(Read more)

Great Lew Rockwell interview here.

p.s. Only the government would build a pyramid to use it as a triangle.

In some states it is illegal to label your milk rBGH free. rBGH is a hormone which is occasionally linked to illness immediately before the scientist conducting the study decides to retire.

On my “Liberte” brand yogurt it says “rBGH free: Milk produced without the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin.”

This is immediately followed by: “No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBGH treated and non rBGH treated cows.”

I’m certain that food and chemical companies are so effective at using regulation to strangle competition that someone could go to jail for selling this yogurt without that last note about the safety of rBGH.

I urge my leftist friends to be careful when they call for regulation. They’ll usually get it.

The FDA has been killing people since 1906. The case against fats, it turns out, is nonsense:

See Also:

ps — only the government would create a pyramid to use it as a triangle.

New York – August 11, 2011 – The 83 family farmers, small and family owned seed businesses, and agricultural organizations challenging Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seed filed papers in federal court today defending their right to seek legal protection from the threat of being sued by Monsanto for patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed. The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) represents the plaintiffs in the suit, titled Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association (OSGATA), et al. v. Monsanto and pending in the Southern District of New York. Today’s filings respond to a motion filed by Monsanto in mid-July to have the case dismissed. In support of the plantiffs’ right to bring the case, 12 agricultural organizations also filed a friend-of-the-court amici brief.

“Rather than give a straight forward answer on whether they would sue our clients for patent infringement if they are ever contaminated by Monsanto’s transgenic seed, Monsanto has instead chosen to try to deny our clients the right to receive legal protection from the courts,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director. “Today’s filings include sworn statements by several of the plaintiffs themselves explaining to the court how the risk of contamination by transgenic seed is real and why they cannot trust Monsanto to not use an occurrence of contamination as a basis to accuse them of patent infringement.”

It is now virtually impossible for a U.S. farmer to grow crops of their choosing (corn, soybeans, canola, etc.) and remain GMO-free because of the numerous biological and human means by which seeds can spread. (Read more from osgata.org)

I think the FDA kills more people than the U.S. Army, though it might be a toss-up.

In a nutshell: Drug companies modify progesterone so that they can patent it. Synthetic progesterone kills and hurts many many women who are trying to prevent cancer. They then attempt to criminalize natural progesterone. You can still buy it, but there are severe restrictions on labeling and marketing — you can’t call it progesterone, even though that’s what it is.

National Institute of Health halted a study of synthetic progesterone because too many women were dying.

“I challenge you: Name for me a single government program which has accomplished its intended objectives, rather than the opposite… which has not done more harm than good.” ~Milton Friedman

Has anybody noticed kids are getting fat as fuck?… So why’s the Government retiring the Food Pyramid? Well… first of all, only the fucking government would create a pyramid just to use it as a triangle. It’s a perfect metaphor for everything they do. Secondly, that food triangle has been teaching kids for the last 20 years to basically eat the exact opposite of the Atkins Diet. Eat five servings of carbs for every one of protein?… Goddamnit.

So the Government taught kids to spend their childhood carbo-loading and sitting at a desk 8 hours a day (throw in some beer and a nap, and that’s literally how sumo wrestlers pack on the pounds). Right about now supporters of big government are screaming “Ridiculous! Sure the food pyramid was wrong, but kids are fat because they ignored it and ate fast food.” So the only reason the program wasn’t more harmful was… because it was so ineffective? Well, that sounds like the perfect rationale for doubling down and spending $2 million creating “MyPlate.”

Did the First Lady just bullshit you?… Yep. Nobody can possibly find that fucking $2 million embarrassment of a logo “useful.” Why?… Clearly it’s only useful for people having trouble grasping the fundamental concepts of the food/plate relationship (“Put my food on a plate, you say?… Preposterous!”); unfortunately whatever traumatic brain injury left them in such a state, also made them incapable of learning from diagrams… It’s a catch 22.

Now for the interactive portion of our program: A Time Trial. While introducing MyPlate Michelle Obama actually said “Parents don’t have the time to measure out exactly three ounces of chicken or to look up how much rice or broccoli is in a serving. That has confounded me as a parent for a very long time. I still don’t know how much protein comes in X number of ounces.” (Read more from absolutedespotism.com)

I like how they discuss obesity as a national security issue. Our job is to be fit an healthy “iron youth” so that we can fight wars for our politicians. Makes me to want to run for my life — to McDonald’s.

Apparently the Feds set up an elaborate sting operation to catch Amish Farmers selling raw (unpasteurized) milk to customers. A practice that is legal in 10-12 other states. While we still have real criminals and crime rings to catch and put an end to, I don’t think it is too much to ask to ask the FBI set up sting operations on mob bosses instead of the Amish.

There are arguments to both sides of the story. Both are dumb. One is right.

The argument against is that unpasteurized milk isn’t safe to drink and therefore should be illegal to purchase.

The argument for is that unpasteurized milk is healthier for you because it still has “good” bacteria and also tastes better.

They are both dumb arguments. First off, drinking unpasteurized milk should not be said to be dangerous, but more risky than drinking pasteurized milk. Eating shards of glass is dangerous. There is no benefit and almost certain danger. Not wearing a seatbelt is risky, but in and of itself, not dangerous.

I don’t know what unpasteurized milk tastes like so I can’t attest to that. But science has shown no proven benefits of drinking raw milk. They’re making the wrong argument. The argument they should be making is, “it’s my money and his milk and by golly I’ll drink it!” (Read more from alternativereason.com)

But in this case, Wikileaks cables leaked information regarding global food policy as it relates to U.S. officials — in the highest levels of government — that involves a conspiracy with Monsanto to force the global sale and use of genetically-modified foods.

In 2007, then-U.S. ambassador to France Craig Stapleton conspired to retaliate against European countries for their anti-biotech policies. U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks reveal the Bush administration formulated battle plans to extract revenge against Europe for refusing to use genetically modified seeds.

In the leaked cable, Stapleton writes: “Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the [European] Commission…Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voice.”

Ambassador Stapleton goes on to write: “Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory,” he wrote. (Read more from crisisboom.com)

Look through the food freedom category to see my views on GMO issues. Unlike the socialists, I’m against a government ban on GMOs. My goal is to expose how they hugely benefit from government privilege despite widespread safety concerns.

From Mises.org: The Socialism of AgriPatents

The US embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style trade war against any European Union country which opposed genetically modified (GM) crops, newly released WikiLeaks cables show.

In response to moves by France to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety in late 2007, the ambassador, Craig Stapleton, a friend and business partner of former US president George Bush, asked Washington to penalise the EU and particularly countries which did not support the use of GM crops.

(Read more from emptywheel.firedoglake.com)

I should say a word about why I’m posting this, as it can be interpreted that the US was simply trying to remove harmful government regulation. GMOs have widespread government support from getting a pass from the FDA, to various laws forbidding GMO competitors from labeling their food GMO free, to government violence against farmers whose crops were infected in GMO pollen — against their wishes, no less.

I’m all for consumer choice, but so long as food approval remains a national government monopoly, we have to pay attention to how the choices of that monopoly are made. This heavy handed support of the US government is evidence of the political strength of GMO companies.

If I still have any socialist readers they probably sympathize with my criticism, but propose a powerful, chaste bureaucrat or politician to lead us to paradise.

Here are my proposals:

* Eliminate all government authority over food certification. Let private standards emerge.

* Consider GMO contamination to be pollution, and just a system of justice to punish the polluter.

* Let people label their food however they want, so long as they don’t commit fraud. Fraud is also a crime for the justice system.

People in the Soviet Union were standing in line for butter. After several hours, one of them said:

“This sucks. Why does government control food distribution?”

There were some nods of agreement, but the young man behind him, a Phd student, said “the free market is great for the rich, but what about the poor? Who would feed the poor?”

“Can you imagine a system in which food is only grown and sold for profit??? A system in which everything was about MONEY!” said another man. “How barbaric!”

“I can speak to this personally,” said a fourth man, a drunk who wobbled on his legs. “Every day of my life I eat from my government quota of food. If it wasn’t for the government, I would starve!”

“Yes, you’re right, the original dissenter agreed. Perhaps food is too important to be left to the free market.”