Bull! Not bull.
    About | Home | Blog | Gallery | Archive | Bibliography | Trading | Elliott Wave | Commodity Charts | Subscribe/Contact | Search Site

The Right to Know What’s in Your Food, Part II

Posted on March 3, 2006
Filed Under Uncategorized |

The United States Congress and the FDA
Part Two - The Right to Know What’s in Your Food
International Medical Veritas Association

by Mark Sircus Ac., OMD
Director International Medical Veritas Association

This is the month in which to view and judge whether the United States House of Representatives is a democratic institution or whether it has slipped down the grassy slope into being an institution that promotes fascism and aggression against its own people. Remembering the best definition of fascism is the union of corporations and state, next week’s vote on food labeling laws will, in all probability, highlight the unholy alliance between major food corporations and elected representatives of the United States government. When we remember the founding fathers words and intentions that this august body is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people the day they vote on this might be a day for tears.

The New York Times reported recently, “After a murky legislative process distinguished by a lack of any public hearing, the House is ready to rush to approve a special-interest measure for the food industry. The bill would pre-empt all state food safety regulations that are more protective than federal standards. A bipartisan majority behind this clearly dangerous bill is echoing the industry’s line that the goal is simply to end consumers’ confusion about varying state regulations that govern warning labels and protective inspections.” (The Abusive New Federalism; March 02,2006; http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/opinion/02thu2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin )

Hundreds of warnings on food labels would vanish across America. States would not be able to warn, for example, when high levels of lead or mercury are present in products. “This would be the most sweeping change in decades to our nation’s efforts to protect the food supply,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. “This is a disaster waiting to happen.” 37 state attorney generals joined Waxman this week asking lawmakers to oppose the bill. Giant food interests obviously feel threatened by California, which is leading the way in demanding consumer warnings about mercury levels in fish, lead in calcium supplements and other hazards.

In reality it’s part of a broad based attack on the quality of the nation’s food supply. Last week, Senate and House Republicans on the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee inserted a last-minute provision into the department’s fiscal 2006 budget specifying that certain artificial ingredients could be used in organic food. Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association, calls the initiative a “sneak attack engineered by the likes of Kraft, Dean Foods and Smucker’s.” When we remember the recent research that showed that when children who switched their diets for only a few days to organic foods dramatically and immediately lowered the amount of toxic pesticides in their bodies we should begin to understand what is at stake here. Organic foods offer a ray of hope in the age when both government and industry think it’s their right to poison our foods with toxic chemicals that they say are safe but are not.

For over a hundred years the FDA has been supervising the addition of disease causing agents into the food supply. It actually started before the formation of the FDA (with The Division of Chemistry) when food preservatives first started to be used. Medical studies were done, subjects got sick and the federal government sided with industrial interests who needed preservatives to expand their growing food empires.

A few days ago Dr. Betty Martini, in an essay called New Cancer Study Obligates FDA To Recall Aspartame, quotes the late FDA Toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, who testified to the Senate: “In view of all these indications that the cancer-causing potential of aspartame is a matter that had been established way beyond any reasonable doubt, one can ask: What is the reason for the apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act?” The Delaney Amendment states clearly, if a product causes cancer in animals it cannot be put in food.

“Is it not clear beyond any shadow of a doubt that aspartame has caused brain tumors or brain cancer in animals?” asked Dr. Gross. “Given that this is so (and I cannot see any kind of tenable argument opposing the view that aspartame causes cancer) how would the FDA justify its position that it views a certain amount of aspartame (50mgm/kgm body weight) as constituting an ADI (Allowable Daily Intake) or “safe” level of it? Is that position not equivalent to setting a “tolerance” for this food additive and thus a violation of that law? And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public?”

Between Congress and the FDA the public should be well protected but we find the opposite to be true. These organizations are guilty of the most horrendous crime of poisoning the food chain and now congressmen and women are falling all over themselves to raze state and local laws in favor of national food and retail interests.

The FDA will resist to the bitter end, not admitting it has acted as a fascist organization promoting the large scale poisoning of the human race with aspartame and other dangerous chemicals like MSG and flouride. It is not just American citizens who are put at risk but the world’s population who are consuming thousand of tons of aspartame a year. Even the kids are dosed with this poison for we find it in everything from candy to children’s vitamin C.

When the government fears the people, you have liberty.
When the people fear the government, you have tyranny.

– Thomas Jefferson

Doesn’t anyone in America remember what its like to be an American? Doesn’t anyone remember the most famous words laid down when America was founded? Give me liberty or give me death takes on new meaning today for as we allow our health freedoms to be eroded we will find ourselves and our loved ones becoming increasingly sick and dying. Perhaps a miracle will happen and the American Congress will come to its senses and remember the people and curse the corporations that have made them sell their souls for the pleasure of the next junket.

International Medical Veritas Association
Copyright 2006 All rights reserved.


Comments are closed. Thank you.


4 Comments so far
  1. Caree Waltz March 4, 2006 4:58 pm

    Daily, I am painfully reminded of the powerful people in our country
    that think of us as “cattle”. I traveled the world as a child raised
    in a Air Force family with all of the ideals of our country that were
    “good”. I am now aware that it was an illusion.
    My brain tries to turn back the clock each day and settle into
    that safe place. Unfortunately, every corner I turn, whether it
    be the controlled news, an article, or just talking with another
    soul, I am reminded that the truth is ugly.
    Caree Waltz

  2. larry ross March 4, 2006 7:22 pm

    yes cattle for the corporate cofers.corporations have no remorse or morality.corporations only exist for profit.fine,but that our nations agencies intended to provide safety and protection,plain sell out.money talks and future generations …..capitalism is great for supply and demand basic economics.like,company A produces better steel at better pricing.great,that can be quantified and profit goes to the best.it gets way to murkey when corporations are involved with oursupposed welfare, for a profit.in those conditions,there is nothing in the corporations structure to prevent them from selling poisons for profit.this is what has occured.if it tastes good and it does,they get the market and the money.you get yummy poison.because capitalism produces the best cost structures for steel does not also mean capitalism produces the best and safest food and drug and doctor supply.it is sad.one model does not fit all.look at the result.strong steel..degenerating populace….how do you reform organisations like the ama.they are the system.right or wrong,the ama is good for the doctors,at least…

  3. Scott March 5, 2006 5:22 pm

    That corporations make profits is not a bad thing, right. That food service and food product companies make a profit, also not a bad thing. That our government is sometimes (not always) inept at serving the best interests of the citizens… definitely a bad thing. If our government cannot or will not serve and protect Americans at large then it has not performed its primary purpose. Why the FDA allows any aspartame, is a mystery to me if it is harmful.

    California has done an excellent job in their labeling laws, and it is not just in reference to foods. How many times have I seen a product (outside of the state of California) that was labeled “known to the state of California to cause cancer”. Now that’s been nice to know when I have seen it. Granted, for a lot of the products, you would have to be exposed on a daily basis for years for it to cause the cancer, but still good to know information. Now what would happen if every single state decided that they wanted laws that required very similar labeling if you (the corporation) wanted to sell your product in their state. Well, the end result if all fifty states had various requirements would be a mess with small print and labeling everywhere. How about consolidate all of those labeling requirements into a single federal requirement?

    All I’m saying is that we take one dose of pragmatism with each dose of skepticism. I know there’s some people I don’t trust in the world, but not everything is a conspiracy. Does capitalism not work for drugs? The best medicine in the world is indeed made under capitalism. Profit margins on a pharmaceutical is much less than for banking.

  4. TS Gordon April 2, 2006 12:32 am

    Each day as I look across the once fertile Delta plains I am reminded of my own primative experiments in organic gardening, way back in 1970. The goal is producing exceptionally good food, and I was thinking in terms of fine French cusine, although I had never experienced such delicacies first hand. Although I cannot answer for the lapse in my own production since, I will attest that most of you simply don’t remember the sight or smell of a fresh tomato with fresh basil.

    Today, you can travel mile after mile and you will not see a single farmer actually working a field. As most households require both partners to assume full time jobs, there is little time available to do much gardening anyway.

    Because we are all vulnerable to a systemic economic collapse, I would simply suggest that you consider the possibility that someday soon, having your own organic garden will prove much more ‘profitable’ than stockpiling gold.

Recent Posts