Category Archives: Food

Kraft removes sorbic acid preservative from some ‘Singles’ products, replaces it with GMOs and an unnamed, proprietary stabilizer

Kraft removes sorbic acid preservative fromsome Singles products replaces it with GMOs and an unnamed proprietary stabilizer Kraft removes sorbic acid preservative from some Singles products, replaces it with GMOs and an unnamed, proprietary stabilizer

In the wake of announcements made by both General Mills and Post about the removal of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from some of their products, at least one major processed food manufacturer has oddly decided to take the opposite approach.
Continue reading «Kraft removes sorbic acid preservative from some ‘Singles’ products, replaces it with GMOs and an unnamed, proprietary stabilizer»

Kraft Foods recently announced that it will phase out the use of the chemical preservative sorbic acid in some of its “Singles” products, only to replace it with a GMO-derived anti-fungal agent in combination with an unnamed, proprietary stabilizing compound.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Kraft plans to phase out sorbic acid just from its “American” and “White American” varieties of Kraft Singles, a highly processed, cheese-like food product that does not mold, in an apparent attempt to appeal to changing consumer tastes. Instead of sorbic acid, these two products will soon contain a blend of natamycin, a chemical preservative derived from GM bacteria, and some other mystery compound that the company disturbingly refuses to disclose.

Somehow, replacing one chemical preservative with another — and a GMO at that! — is considered an improvement at Kraft, the second-largest food and beverage company in the world. Kraft also apparently believes that consumers want to know less about what they are eating, hence its decision to include an additional secret ingredient.

“We know families today want convenient foods that have no artificial preservatives and a simpler, more recognizable ingredient list,” declared Brian Gelb, a senior associate brand manager for Kraft Foods, in a recent statement intended to be taken seriously. “Kraft is working to deliver more of these options for some of our most beloved brands.”

Kraft Singles not even cheese; sorbic acid probably safer than replacements

This marketing sleight of hand might be funny if it did not illustrate how utterly degenerate these major food companies are when it comes to deceiving their customers. The executive leadership at Kraft must have come completely unhinged to think it was a good idea to swap a mostly benign preservative with a questionable GM one alongside a mystery ingredient, and call it “natural.”

The major irony in all this is that Kraft Singles are not even real cheese, and yet Kraft is busy fussing about a preservative that it thinks might be a turn-off to the kinds of people that purchase Kraft Singles in the first place. If we had to make an educated guess, it is probably safe to say that most Kraft Singles customers are probably unaware of what they are actually eating, let alone concerned about the type of chemical used to preserve it.

It should also be noted here that natamycin is technically a drug. Not only is it used in eye drops and other medical applications as an antibiotic, but it is also used to treat cuts and other abrasions in the skin. In other words, Kraft Singles will now contain genetically engineered antibiotic drugs in addition to unlabeled additives – bon appetit!

“So, we are replacing a man made mold inhibitor, with a man made antibiotic that will cause more problems for people”? questioned one rhetorical Houston Chronicle commenter regarding the announcement.

Another commenter over at the Chicago Tribune, also concerned about the addition of antibiotics in cheese, explains that “sorbic acid is about as benign as you can get.” In his view, the switch will “backfire on Kraft.”

So as not to generate too much ruckus, Kraft is planning to keep using sorbic acid in its 2% and non-fat Singles varieties until further notice.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.chicagotribune.com

http://www.gmo-compass.org

http://www.chron.com

http://www.kraftrecipes.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

EPA claims ‘no harm will result’ from any levels of BT residue on GM soybeans

gmo soy EPA claims no harm will result from any levels of BT residue on GM soybeans

According to the Cornucopia Institute, “The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a final rule on February 12 creating an exemption for residue tolerance levels in soy foods and feed for the biological pesticide BT used in GMO crops. Similar exemptions have already been approved for corn and cotton food and products.”
Continue reading «EPA claims ‘no harm will result’ from any levels of BT residue on GM soybeans»

Bacillus Thuringiensis, the bacterium commonly called Bt, naturally produces a toxin that kills certain insects. Because of this trait, scientists have spliced Bt genes from the bacterium into GMO crops to make them more resistant to pests.

“EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein,” the agency wrote.

There have been a multitude of studies showing that GM foods can cause harm. “Authors of a recent study using the Bt toxins concluded that these proteins can cause harm to humans and livestock, and the risk increases with long-term exposure and with higher levels of toxins in our food,” reported Cornucopia.

You can view and comment on the EPA’s final rule at FederalRegister.gov. Objections to the final rule and requests for a hearing must be filed by April 14.

Source: http://www.cornucopia.org/2014/02/epa-approves-exemption-bt-residues-soy-foods-gmo-crops/

More companies voluntarily phasing out GMOs in response to growing consumer demand

gmo in trash More companies voluntarily phasing out GMOs in response to growing consumer demand

Demand for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or synthetically derived “food” owned by multinational corporations, is on the decline, suggests a new report by NPR. And many U.S. farmers are now voluntarily switching to non-GMO and organic crops to meet this growing demand for clean food, despite the fact that mandatory GMO labeling has yet to become a reality anywhere in North America.
Continue reading «More companies voluntarily phasing out GMOs in response to growing consumer demand»

Much of this demand comes from Asian countries like Japan, admits Illinois-based grain processor Lynn Clarkson, where GMOs are much more scrutinized at the regulatory levels, and the public is generally more wary about the long-term safety of GMOs. But demand is shifting here in the U.S. as well, where an increasing number of food processors and manufacturers are responding to growing public demand for more unmodified, chemical-free food options.
For Clarkson, this meant transforming his Clarkson Grain processing plant, which sits amidst thousands of acres of transgenic corn and soybeans in the central Illinois town of Cerro Gordo, to only GMO-free grains. But this was not exactly a difficult feat, as Clarkson’s innovations with regard to supplying American food companies with consistent product naturally paved the way for a longstanding non-GMO-grain-trading relationship with Asia.

“We don’t tell people what their values should be,” explained Clarkson to NPR, noting that it was food companies themselves, and ultimately their customers, that inspired what would later become a non-GMO tradition. “We inquire, and then we do our best to support those values.”

Foreign food companies don’t want GMOs, and neither do conscious consumers

Having worked in the grain business for 40 years, Clarkson witnessed the emergence of GMOs during the peak of his career some 20 years ago. Many farmers switched to the technology, which some say was more the result of coercion, but Clarkson’s customers were simply not buying it.

According to NPR, Clarkson had already successfully built a strong rapport with his Asian clients around the time that GMOs emerged. Since none of them wanted these transgenic fabrications, he in turn was able to establish one of the first non-GMO supply chains right in the midst of America’s agricultural heartland.

“U.S. buyers often think that we’re starting from scratch,” he contends, referring to his plant’s loyal dedication to processing only non-GMO grains. “Well, we’re not. We’re starting from millions of bushels of demand that are in place and being satisfied on a regular basis for Asian clients.”

Farmers do not even want to grow GMOs

Having all the pieces already in place, though, has made the transition to non-GMO a lot simpler for Americans, as the logistics behind the growing and shipping of non-GMO grains to Asia — many non-GMO farms in the Midwest are located along river routes that easily connect shipping vessels to the ocean — have already been previously established.

Adding to the conversation are some previous and even current GMO farmers, who are more than happy to escape the clutches of the biotechnology industry by meeting new demand for non-GMO crops. In many cases, farmers were unduly pressured by the likes of Monsanto to switch to GMO crops, a decades-long campaign that has resulted in some 90 percent of the corn, soy and cotton grown in the U.S. being converted to GMO.

“[N]one of us want the crops,” explains one NPR commenter and farmer, noting that Monsanto and others in the industry successfully introduced GMOs by initially intimidating farmers alongside its legal team. “Monsanto wants the crops and the herbicide sales, and that’s the only reason it’s there.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.npr.org

http://www.treehugger.com

http://www.greenpeace.org

http://science.naturalnews.com

Untested GM purple tomato: Scientists ditch ethics as they seek sick patients for human trials

GM purple tomato Untested GM purple tomato: Scientists ditch ethics as they seek sick patients for human trials
Genetically modified (GM) purple tomatoes are back, and British “Frankenscientists” want you and your family to consume them as a way to avoid developing cancer – seriously.
Continue reading «Untested GM purple tomato: Scientists ditch ethics as they seek sick patients for human trials»

Researchers from the U.K.’s John Innes Centre (JIC) are boldly claiming, based on laughably flimsy evidence, that GM purple tomatoes are some kind of miracle “superfruit” for cancer, even though their potential dangers are completely unknown and non-GM fruit and vegetable alternatives with the same or more nutrients already exist.

GMWatch.org reports that Professor Cathie Martin and her research team from JIC are hoping to very soon begin human trials of the mostly untested GM fruit on heart patients in the U.K. This is after a single small-scale laboratory trial revealed that mice given an extract of the transgenic travesty lived about 40 days longer on average than other mice.

Spliced with genes from the antioxidant-rich snapdragon plant, GM purple tomatoes have been around since 2008, when we previously reported that they were a budding candidate for cancer treatment. At that time, researchers made the inference that humans might be able to avoid developing cancer, or perhaps just live longer if they already have the disease, by consuming patented, corporation-owned GM purple tomatoes straight from the lab.

The idea did not exactly fly the first time around, so now the team that created GM purple tomatoes is trying again, this time with the help of the mainstream media. According to GMWatch.org, outrageous headlines branding GM purple tomatoes as some type of miracle cancer cure are proliferative, despite the fact that nothing has actually been proven with regard to the efficacy of the novel crop.

“These claims are not actually based on benefits seen in humans, but rather from a small-scale study of mice that were given an extract of genetically modified tomatoes,” admits NHS Choices, the official website of the U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS). “[T]he small sample sizes used mean the results may have occurred by chance. Also until the tomato is tested in humans we cannot be sure that it will offer the same benefits, or that there will not be any unexpected harms.”

Non-GM tomatoes with high levels of anthocyanins already exist

One of the major claims being made with regard to the alleged benefits of GM purple tomatoes has to do with their exceptionally (unnaturally) high antioxidant levels, which researchers say makes them the “ultimate healthy superfood.” Rich in anthocyanins, which are what gives them their purple color, GM purple tomatoes are purported to help bridge a nutritional gap that can lead to cancer.

But many other fruits and vegetables that occur naturally, including foods like raspberries, blueberries, blackberries, red cabbage and eggplant, to name just a few, already contain high levels of anthocyanins and much more. These foods have not been genetically modified, and yet they are admittedly superior in terms of their overall nutrient content and their proven safety.

And if tomatoes are the issue, researchers in both Brazil and Oregon have already developed non-GM tomato varieties with virtually the exact same antioxidant and nutrient profiles as GM purple tomatoes. In other words, GM purple tomatoes are a completely unnecessary addition to the food supply, and only threaten to further adulterate the food supply with irreversible genetic pollution.

“This is extraordinarily irresponsible and breaches medical ethics,” adds GMWatch.org, noting that the next step for GM purple tomatoes is for their juice extract to be administered to heart patients in the U.K. “If Martin and the JIC really are planning to rush ahead with human trials on sick people before doing basic animal toxicology testing, then they are putting patients at risk. Sadly this would be typical of the arrogant behaviour we have come to expect of pushers of this technology.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.gmwatch.org

http://www.gmwatch.org

http://www.gmwatch.org

http://www.nhs.uk

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

California company recalls 8.7 million pounds of meat

beef recall California company recalls 8.7 million pounds of meat

A Northern California company is recalling more than 8.7 million pounds of beef products because it processed diseased and unhealthy animals without a full federal inspection, federal officials said.
Continue reading «California company recalls 8.7 million pounds of meat»

The recall involves a year’s worth of meat processed by Rancho Feeding Corp., which has been under scrutiny by the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The agency said that without full inspection, the recalled products are unfit for human consumption.

The goods were processed from Jan. 1, 2013, through Jan. 7 this year and shipped to distribution centers and retail stores in California, Florida, Illinois and Texas. The products include beef carcasses, oxtail, liver, cheeks, tripe, tongue and veal bones.

Last month the company recalled more than 40,000 pounds of meat products that were produced on Jan. 8 and also did not undergo a full inspection.

The problems were discovered as part of an ongoing investigation, the FSIS said on Saturday.

A call to the company went unanswered.

There have been no reports of illnesses related to the recalled products. An FSIS spokesman said that because some of the products could still be frozen and in storage, a Class I recall was issued because using the products could have serious health consequences.

The recall by Rancho Feeding Corp. follows a recent spate of cases involving food contamination. Earlier this year, Tyson Foods voluntarily recalled 34,000 pounds of chicken for possible salmonella contamination. The chicken was linked to illnesses in a Tennessee correctional facility, where seven people got sick and two were hospitalized.

And in October, Foster Farms chicken-processing plants were linked to a Salmonella outbreak that sickened hundreds of people across 20 states. Although the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a public health alert, the company did not recall any of its products.

Source: Al Jazeera and The Associated Press