Home Food Additives
Additives
ADDITIVE CODES Print E-mail

 

  ADDITIVES TO AVOID IN FOODS


FLAVOUR ENHANCERS


ARTIFICIAL SWEETNERS


ANTIOXIDANTS


NOTE 621 MSG
 620 - 625
Glutamates
MSG
HVP
HPP
627 Disodium guanylate
631 Disodium inosinates
635 Ribonucleotides


NOTE 951 ASPARTAME
This is highly toxic and is in nearly all “lite” and “diet” products
950 Acesulphame k (potassium)
951 Aspartame
952 Sodium or Calcium cyclamate
954 Saccharin
955 Sucralose


310-312 gallates
319 TBHQ
320 BHA
321 BHT


COLOURS


PRESERVATIVES


OTHERS


102 104 107 110 122 123 124127 129 132 133 142 143 151 155,  Natural Colour 160b


200-203 sorbic acid, sorbates
210-213 benzoicacid, benzoates
220-228 sulphur dioxide & sulphites
249-252 nitrates, nitrites
280-283 propionic acid & propionates


925 chlorine
926 chlorine dioxide

 The above are in many of our processed foods and when eliminated from childrens diets behaviour and concentrations levels have been known to greatly improve.  All packaged food has a list of ingredients and/ or numbered ingredients generally shown on the back of the packaging.

 
Neotame: 13,000 Times Sweeter Than Sugar And Even More Toxic Than Aspartame Print E-mail

BY  Marco Torres   March 13, 2012

Neotame: 13,000 Times Sweeter Than Sugar And Even More Toxic Than Aspartame

In the event that the public becomes too informed and savvy about toxic additives in our food supply, what's a multi-billion dollar industry to do? The first step is to create another more toxic version of the additive. The second step is to collude with regulatory authorities such as the FDA to convince the public that the new, more toxic additive is safe. The third and final step is to prevent the toxic additive from being listed on any ingredient labels. From the folks that brought us Aspartame, meet Neotame, a deadly sweetener that you'll never see on a label because...well that's just the way the FDA wants it.

Neotame is officially marketed as an inexpensive artificial sweetener made by NutraSweet, which is a former division of Monsanto and original manufacturer of aspartame.

Eighty percent of all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) complaints pertain to aspartame's adverse reactions. These reports include: grand mal seizures, brain tumors, blindness and other health-related problems, including deaths. Monsanto’s Nick Rosa stated in 1998, that Neotame is “based on the aspartame formula.”

It is up to 13,000 times sweeter than sucrose (table sugar). The product is very attractive to food manufacturers, as its use greatly lowers the cost of production compared to using sugar or high fructose corn syrup (due to the lower quantities needed to achieve the same sweetening).

Neotame is aspartame plus 3-di-methylbutyl, which can be found on the EPA’s list of most hazardous chemicals. The aspartame formula is comprised of Phenylalanine [50%], which caused seizures in lab animals and Aspartic Acid [40%], which caused “holes in the brains” of lab animals -- bonded by Methyl Alcohol, or Methanol [10%] which is capable of causing blindness, liver damage and death.

Methanol, or wood alcohol in aspartame breaks down further in heat and in the body, into Formaldehyde (embalming fluid), Formic Acid (venom in ant stings) and the most deadly of all -- Diketopiperazine (DKP), a brain tumor agent.

When it comes to human health, neotame is in the same dangerous category as aspartame, but it is a deadlier neurotoxin, immunotoxin and excitotoxin. The long-term effects are essentially cell-death.

Even Monsanto's own pre-approval studies of neotame revealed adverse reactions. Unfortunately, Monsanto only conducted a few one-day studies in humans rather than encouraging independent researchers to obtain NIH funding to conduct long-term human studies on the effects of neotame.

There were NO independent studies that found neotame to be safe. All industry-funded studies are now being found to be based on very poorly designed, deceptive and fraudulent research .

This is no surprise given all of the problems with aspartame industry research and scientific abuse. It is clear that any neotame research that Monsanto, industry groups, or consultants of Monsanto should be rejected until which time more trustworthy, independent research can be conducted. Such experiments should include independent animals studies and especially long-term (e.g., 4-5 years+) human studies in various susceptible population groups.

Approval and Labeling

Neotame was approved by the FDA for general use in July 2002, and has now been approved by the EU. It is also is approved for use in Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

The FDA loosened all labeling requirements for Neotame as part of a large-scale effort to make it a near-ubiquitous artificial sweetener, to be found on the tabletop, in all prepared foods, even in organics. It simply does not have to be included in the ingredient list. How's that for stealth?

If you purchase processed foods, whether USDA Certified Organic or not, that food may likely contain Neotame because it is cost-effective, and since no one knows it is there, there is no public backlash.

The USDA states that their National Organic Program (NOP) does not permit the use of neotame in products labeled certified organic, however this is likely a deceptive ploy to soothe the public's concerns about this toxic sweetener.

Since the USDA is controlled by politicians and lobbyists, it cannot be trusted to follow through to protect any of its regulatory policies. The NOP is a division within the USDA in charge of regulating the USDA Certified Organic products, labeling, enforcement etc. Considering the size of this division in comparison to the amount of organic food they regulate, NOP standards are arguably as lax and useless as USDA's conventional foods. The employees that enforce NOP standards know this very well.

Bottom Line: Don't trust USDA organic foods and confide in local farms with reputable practices.

Where Do We Go From Here
?

Due to corporate greed, it is becoming quite apparent that the entire food supply is becoming one toxic wasteland that none of us can rely on. We need to support local farms and move our sustenance back to sustainble farming practices that benefit the population rather than harm it.

If you're still consuming processed foods with artificial sweeteners, you are gambling with your long-term well being. There are no corporations that serve agribusiness that can be trusted to safeguard public health, and the regulatory agencies that are officially in charge of that mandate are in bed with them. Where does that leave the safety of the food industry? I think you can figure that one out.

Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.

Sources:
aspartamesafety.com
medicinenet.com
food.gov.uk
gazette.gc.ca
holisticmed.com
neotame.com
wikipedia.org
farmwars.info

 
USDA SCIENTIST REVEALS ALL - GLYPHOSATE HAZARDS TO CROPS, SOIL, ANIMALS AND CONSUMERS Print E-mail

Don Huber painted a devastating picture of glyphosate and GM crops at UK Parliament.

Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji

In less than an hour, Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University and USDA senior scientist (see Box) delivered to the UK Houses of Parliament a damning indictment of glyphosate agriculture as a most serious threat to the environment, livestock, and human health [1].

Don Huber

Don Huber, Emeritus Professor at Purdue University and senior scientist on USDA’s National Plant Disease Recovery System, has been a plant physiologist and pathologist for over 40 years. His academic career began with 8 years as a cereal pathologist at the University of Idaho, and the next 35 years at Purdue University where he specialised in soil-borne disease control, physiology of disease, and microbial ecology. For the past 20 years, he has conducted extensive research into the effects of glyphosate on crops, in response to the increase in crop diseases on glyphosate-applied fields.

Since his letter to the US Secretary of State Tom Vilsak was leaked in February 2011, there has been a great deal of controversy over what Huber described as a pathogen “new to science” and abundant in glyphosate-tolerant GM crops (see [2] Emergency! Pathogen New to Science Found in Roundup Ready GM Crops?, SiS 50). As he concluded in the letter: “We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem”.

His talk linked glyphosate to reduced nutrient availability in plants, increasing plant diseases, the emergence of a new pathogen, animal illness and possible effects on human health (see [3, 4] Glyphosate Tolerant Crops Bring Death and Disease, Scientists Reveal Glyphosate Poisons Crops and Soil, SiS 47).

Pathogen new to science

The conversion of US agriculture to monochemical herbicide practice has resulted in the extensive use of glyphosate herbicides. Coincidentally, farmers have been witnessing deterioration in the health of corn, soybean, wheat and other crops, and epidemics of diseases in small grain crops. All are associated with the extensive use of glyphosate, which has increased further since the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant, Roundup Ready (RR) crops.

Glyphosate immobilises nutrients required to maintain plant health and resistance to disease. This weakening of the plants defence could explain the infestation of GM crops with the new pathogen, which has now been observed in horse, sheep, pigs, cows, chicken, multiple animal tissues including reproductive parts (semen, amniotic fluid), manure, soil, eggs, milk, as well as the common fungal pathogen that is currently infesting RR crops, Fusarium solani fsp glycines mycelium. All are coming into contact with glyphosate either through direct exposure or consumption through animal feed. It is also highly abundant in crops suffering from plant Goss’ wilt and sudden death syndrome.

The pathogen can be cultured in the lab, and has been isolated from livestock foetal tissue, replicated in the lab and re-introduced back into the animals. It appears to be very common and may well be interacting with the effects of glyphosate on both plants and animals, exacerbating disease and causing reproductive failure in livestock (see below). Although great expectations have been placed on Huber to publish his findings, he insists that before this can be done, further resources are necessary to be able to characterise the ‘entity’ and identify what type of species it is, including sequencing of its genome. This is a slow process and once complete, it is his intention to publish the work in a peer-reviewed journal.

Understanding glyphosate’s mode of action

Recognising glyphosate’s mechanism of action is the key to understanding how it may exert detrimental effects on the health of crops, animals, and the environment alike. Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide that interacts with a range of physiological processes in the plant and its environment. Although it is most commonly recognised to work through inhibition of the plant enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) involved in the production of aromatic amino acids in the shikimate pathway, it was actually first patented as a strong metal-chelator that binds to metals including manganese, magnesium, iron, nickel, zinc and calcium, many of which are important micronutrients acting as co-factors for plant enzymes in different physiological processes including the plants’ defence system. Indeed, it is actually through chelation of manganese that the EPSPS enzyme is inhibited.

Rendering plants more susceptible to disease through glyphosate’s pathogenic activity is actually the way it exerts its herbicidal activity. This is done not just through immobilising nutrients in the plant but also impacting the agricultural system as a whole. Consistently, if glyphosate does not reach the root of a plant or the plant is grown in a sterile soil, the plant is not killed.

Once in the soil, glyphosate is later immobilised through the chelation of cations, and is therefore very stable and not easily degraded. However, phosphorus (including phosphorus fertilisers) can desorb the herbicide, making it active once again in the soil.

Glyphosate interferes negatively with many components of agriculture

Huber stressed that agriculture is an integrated system of many interacting components, which together determine crop health and therefore yield. This concept is undervalued, and the sooner this is recognised, the sooner we will be able to reap the full genetic potential of our crops.

The three main components of an agricultural system are 1) the biotic environment including beneficial organisms for example, nitrogen-fixing microbes and mineralizers; 2) the abiotic environment including nutrients, moisture, pH; and 3), defence against pathogens that damage crops. The genetic potential of a plant can be achieved by minimising the stress placed on these components through improving plant nutrition and physiology and prevention of diseases and pests.

We have been repeatedly told that to meet the world’s needs for food production we must resort to GM crops and chemical agriculture. However, glyphosate detrimentally interacts with all the agricultural components, so much so that an estimated 50 percent of the potential crop yields are currently being lost (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Interactions of glyphosate with plant and soil biology; adapted from Huber’s presentation

As shown in figure 1, glyphosate interacts with a wide range of health determinants, which intensifies stress and reduces crop yields. Not only does it accumulate in the plant tissues (shoot and root tips, reproductive structures and legume nodules), it accumulates in the roots where it then leaks into the soil and harms beneficial microorganisms in the soil including those that act as biological controls of pathogens. The obvious consequence is the increased virulence of soil-borne pathogens that lead to disease.

Glyphosate immobilises nutrients critical for plant defence system and other functions

One of Huber’s important discoveries was the close correlation of all the known conditions affecting the disease ‘take-all’ with the availability of manganese to the plant and its physiological effect on resistance to this pathogen.

Micronutrients are the activators or inhibitors of many critical physiological functions. Thus, a deficiency or change in availability of these regulatory elements can greatly affect plant growth and resistance to diseases and pests. Those metabolic pathways producing secondary anti-microbial compounds, pathogen-inhibiting amino acids and peptides, hormones involved in cicatrisation (walling off pathogens), callusing, and disease escape mechanisms can all be compromised by glyphosate.

Micronutrients are also necessary for other processes in a plant. Manganese for example is not only involved in co-activating the EPSPS enzyme, with up to 25 other enzymes known to be affected by manganese chelation. Such enzymes are necessary for photosynthesis, in assimilating carbon dioxide in the electron transport chain, along with zinc. It also helps in the synthesis of chlorophyll and in nitrate assimilation. Numerous enzymes requiring other mineral co-factors are also affected, among them enzymes of the shikimate pathway, to which EPSPS belongs, are responsible for plant responses to stress and the synthesis of defence molecules against pathogens, such as amino acids, lignins, hormones, phytoalexins, flavenoids and phenols.

Consistent with what is known about the role of micronutrients and glyphosate, the levels of key minerals have been measured in transgenic RR soybeans and found to be lower than those in isogenic non-transgenic varieties. Manganese was reduced by as much as 45 %, while iron was reduced by 49 % [5]. Similar deficiencies in mineral content have been found in non-GM varieties, suggesting that the glyphosate, and not the RR transgene, is responsible for reducing mineral availability [6]. Glyphosate reduces photosynthesis, water uptake, amino acid production as well as lignin, a molecule conferring mechanical strength of the plant and crucial for conducting water through plant stems [7, 8].

As Huber stated, the consequences of these nutrient deficiencies is that “crops don‘t look as good, are not as productive or rigorous, and are slower growing“ (see Figure 2). He noted yield drags of 26 % for RR soybeans. Furthermore, with current concerns for global warming, plants that are up to 50 % less water-efficient, such as RR crops, are counter-productive and can only exacerbate problems.

Huber stressed that there is nothing in the glyphosate tolerant crops that operates on the glyphosate applied to them. Consequently, although they have enough resistance to prevent them from dying (conferred by the EPSPS transgene), their overall physiological function is compromised by glyphosate. It therefore affects GM as well as non-GM crops through residual levels of glyphosate in the ground.

In addition to chelating nutrients in the plants, glyphosate can lower mineral content through damaging beneficial soil organisms, including microbes producing indole-acetic acid (a growth-promoting auxin), earthworms, mycorrhizae associations, phosphorus & zinc uptake, microbes such as Pseudomonads, Bacillus that convert insoluble soil oxides to plant-available forms of manganese and iron, nitrogen-fixing bacteria Bradyrhizobium, Rhizobium, and organisms involved in the biological control of soil-borne diseases that reduce root uptake of nutrients.

Figure 2 Effects of long-term glyphosate on crop health; adapted from Huber’s presentation

Glyphosate increases incidence and virulence of soil-borne pathogens

Thirty-four diseases have been reported in the scientific literature to increase in incidence as a result of glyphosate weed-eradication programmes. They affect a wide variety of crops from cereals to bananas, tomatoes, soybean, cotton, canola, melon and grapes [9]. Some of these diseases are considered ‘emerging’ or ‘re-emerging’ as they had not caused serious economic losses in the past. This has worrying implications for the agricultural sector with the US now in its fourth year of epidemics of Goss’ wilt and sudden death syndrome and eighteenth year of epidemic of Fusarium fungal colonisation resulting in root rot and Fusarium wilt. Not only does glyphosate affect disease susceptibility, there is also evidence of increased disease severity. Examples include ‘take-all’; Corynespora root rot in soybean; Fusarium spp diseases, including those caused by Fusarium species that are ordinarily non-pathogenic. Head-scab caused by Fusarium spp of cereals increases following glyphosate application, which is also now prevalent in cooler climates when previously it was limited to warmer climates.

Food and Feed Safety Concerns

Nutrient-deficient, transgenic plants suffering from disease that also harbour herbicide residues, presents an array of possible safety hazards to animals and humans. According to Huber, possible harm include direct toxicity of glyphosate itself, which has been shown to cause endocrine disruption, DNA damage, reproductive and developmental toxicities, neurotoxicity, cancer, and birth defects (see [10]Glyphosate Toxic and Roundup Worse,SiS26; [11]Death by Multiple Poisoning, Glyphosate and Roundup,SiS42; [12]Ban Glyphosate HerbicideNow.SiS43; [13]Lab Study Establishes Glyphosate Link to Birth Defects,SiS48). Furthermore, allergies are on the rise, and animals are showing allergy responses, including inflamed irritated stomachs (Figure 3), discoloration of stomach lining, leakage of intestines as well as behavioural symptoms of irritability and anti-social behaviour in cows (abnormal for herd animals). Inflammatory bowel disease in humans has risen 40 percent since 1992, which may be related to consumption of GM foods, although this has not yet been proven.

Figure 3 Stomach shows allergic response of discolouration and inflammation in GMO fed pig (right) compared with control (left)

The increase in infestation of crops with fungal pathogens that produce toxins is an added concern. Mycotoxins, including fusarium toxins as well as aflatoxins released by Aspergillus fungi are carcinogenic and have forced imports of wheat into the US due to unsafe levels found in domestic harvests.

Triple whammy of reproductive toxicity caused by glyphosate

In 2002, the Cattlemen’s Association gave a statement to US Congress on the serious and puzzling rises in reproductive problems. It said: “high numbers of foetuses are aborting for no apparent reason. Other farmers successfully raise what look to be normal young cattle, only to learn when the animals are butchered that their carcasses appear old and, therefore, less valuable…The sporadic problem is so bad both in the United States and abroad that in some herds around 40-50 percent of pregnancies are being lost.. [and] the viability of this important industry is threatened.”

Glyphosate appears to be able to induce reproductive failures through three separate mechanisms. The first, mentioned above is the endocrine dysfunction caused by direct toxicity of glyphosate.

The second is the reduced nutrient content having consequential effects on the nutritional status of animals. Manganese in animals, as in plants, is an essential nutrient, and deficiencies have been associated with a variety of diseases as well as reproductive failures, which are becoming increasingly common in livestock. One study performed in Australia following two seasons of high levels of stillbirths in cattle found that all dead calves were manganese deficient [14]. Furthermore, 63 percent of babies with birth defects were also deficient. Manganese is known to be important for mobilising calcium into bones, correlating with abnormal bone formation in these calves.

Third, the unknown pathogenic ‘entity’ may be associated with inducing pseudo-pregnancies. As far back as 1998, a suspect agent was found in reproductive tissue of livestock. It has now been isolated in high concentrations from semen, amniotic fluid as well as placental tissue. It has also been found in aborted foetal tissue. Some farms are reporting up to 50 percent fewer conceptions in animals due to increased miscarriages and pseudo-pregnancies. Although evidence of the widespread presence of this new pathogen is clear, Don Huber suggested the need for further research to understand not only what kind of pathogen it is, but importantly, the effects it is having on the health of plants as well as animals.

To conclude

Over 100 peer reviewed papers have been published by Huber and other scientists on the detrimental effects of glyphosate. Glyphosate increases disease in plants (as well as animals), prompting Huber to write to the Secretary of Agriculture. It may be linked to many health problems in animals and humans, which are an added cost to all the failed promises of a new agricultural technology that would feed the world. As Huber concluded, the “public trust has been betrayed.”

A fully illustrated and referenced version of this report is posted on ISIS members website and is otherwise available for download here.

 
FOOD FREEDOM BETRAYAL Print E-mail

Organic Consumers Association Funded by Big Pharma!

alt

By Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

Our food supply is in jeopardy. Not only from outside forces such as poisons from China, but from within. The very people that we look to for guidance seem to be working together to lead us straight into global food governance in the form of Codex Alimentarius. This is especially alarming when you consider that the very organizations such as the USDA and FDA, that are charged with the safeguarding and regulation of our food supply are at the forefront of the battle, leading us straight into worldwide genocide using food as a weapon.

But the USDA and FDA do not stand alone. There are others who consider food to be “fair game” in this war against the people, and they just happen to control some very large purse strings. So, who holds the purse strings behind the push to obliterate any food safeguards we may have? Let’s just pick two – Rockefeller and Merck, then take a closer look at a few of the “trusted” organizations that they fund.

The Purse Strings

Rockefeller

Let’s take a look at just a part of what the Rockefeller crime family is involved in concerning our food supply.

alt

Today, the Rockefellers use coercive population control tactics and food as a weapon through a front organization, CGIAR (Consultative Group on Agricultural Resources) as the Rockefellers are trying to distance themselves from public- just like the Rothschild clan has done. Engdahl reports that CGIAR operates under the umbrella of the UN World Bank, and its primary focus is the spread of GMO crops. CGIAR was created by the Rockefellers and the Ford Foundation, along with the UN World Bank in 1971 with $350 million dollars a year in funding. (MorphCity)

Financed by generous Rockefeller and Ford Foundation study grants, CGIAR saw to it that leading Third World agriculture scientists and agronomists were brought to the US to master the concepts of modern agribusiness production, in order to carry it back to their homeland. In the process they created an invaluable network of influence for US agribusiness promotion in those countries, most especially promotion of the GMO Gene Revolution in developing countries, all in the name of science and efficient, free market agriculture.(InformationLiberation)

The Rockefeller Foundation spent more than $100 million for the advance of the GMO revolution. (Engdahl – Seeds of Destruction)

Part of the Rockefeller dynasty includes a group known as Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors:

Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that advises donors in their philanthropic endeavors throughout the world. The foundation is headquartered in New York City and adheres to John D. Rockefeller Sr.’s practice of managing philanthropy “as if it were a business.”[1] Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors currently advises on and manages more than $200 million in annual giving in more than 60 countries.[2] (Wikipedia)

Philanthropy can be used by business to advance a corporate image that is acceptable to certain groups of people in order to put up a benevolent facade while all the time conducting business as usual, which may or may not be so benevolent.


Merck

Now let’s take a peek at Merck:

alt

Natural News

Merck and Schering-Plough recently merged to create a new company. Today, we are the second-largest pharmaceutical company in the world. We also are a global leader in consumer products and animal care. (Merck)


This is the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world! Merck is the epitome of Big Pharma. One of its departments is devoted to vaccines such as:

AFLURIA® (Influenza Virus Vaccine)

COMVAX® [Haemophilus b Conjugate (Meningococcal Protein Conjugate) and Hepatitis B (Recombinant) Vaccine]

GARDASIL® [Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent (Types 6, 11, 16, and 18) Vaccine, Recombinant]

M-M-R®II (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Vaccine Live)

PedvaxHIB® [Haemophilus b Conjugate Vaccine (Meningococcal Protein Conjugate)]

PNEUMOVAX®23 (Pneumococcal Vaccine Polyvalent)

ProQuad® (Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella Virus Vaccine Live)

RECOMBIVAX HB® [Hepatitis B Vaccine (Recombinant)]

RotaTeq® (Rotavirus Vaccine, Live, Oral, Pentavalent)

Tetanus and Diphtheria Toxoids Adsorbed

VAQTA® (Hepatitis A Vaccine, Inactivated)

VARIVAX® (Varicella Virus Vaccine Live)

ZOSTAVAX® (Zoster Vaccine Live)

(MerckVaccines)

Let’s just look at one of the listed vaccines that this company supplies – Gardasil:

Even one of the top researchers behind the vaccine’s clinical trials, who has been paid by Merck to speak about its supposed wonders, is now publicly questioning it.

No, I didn’t just make that up. Dr. Diane Harper told CBS News in August that some of the side effects could make the vaccine riskier than the cervical cancer it’s supposed to stop.

Remember, this is the same company that rushed Vioxx through the system, and we know how that turned out. Some folks even say Merck’s HPV vaccine really stands for “Help Pay for Vioxx.” (PPJ Gazette)

Part of the Merck dynasty includes a group known as The John Merck Fund:

The late Serena S. Merck founded The John Merck Fund, a New York charitable trust named for her son, in 1970. For the first sixteen years, The Fund worked exclusively to support research into children’s developmental disabilities. Beginning in 1986, it added programs in other fields that also were of concern to Mrs. Merck and her late husband, George W. Merck. (Govtech)

Here is a little history on George W. Merck:

George Wilhelm Herman Emanuel Merck (March 29, 1894 – November 9, 1957), was the president of Merck & Co. from 1925 to 1950.

Born in New York and raised in Llewellyn Park, New Jersey, he attended Harvard College, graduating in 1915. World War I prevented him from pursuing an advanced degree in Germany; instead, he joined his father at the company. He was made president of the company in 1925, shortly before his father’s death. During the interwar years, he oversaw Merck’s involvement in the development of synthetic vitamins, sulfas, antibiotics, and hormones. During World War II, he led the War Research Service, which initiated the U.S. biological weapons program. Merck was on the cover of Time magazine on August 18, 1952, illustrating a story about the American drug industry. He died of a cerebral hemorrhage in West Orange, New Jersey. (Museum Stuff)

George Merck “oversaw Merck’s involvement in the development of synthetic vitamins, sulfas, antibiotics, and hormones.” he also “led the War Research Service, which initiated the U.S. biological weapons program.” Evidently something that was “of concern” to George Merck was biological weapons, synthetic vitamins and vaccines.

Funding Recipients

Organic Consumers Association (OCA)

altOne of the organizations that has received money from the likes of Rockefeller and Merck through their respective foundations is the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).

Here is a snip from the OCA’s “about” page:

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots non-profit 501(c)3 public interest organization campaigning for health, justice, and sustainability. The OCA deals with crucial issues of food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, children’s health, corporate accountability, Fair Trade, environmental sustainability and other key topics. We are the only organization in the US focused exclusively on promoting the views and interests of the nation’s estimated 50 million organic and socially responsible consumers. (Organic Consumers)

That promo sounds very, very, good. That is, until you realize where the money came from to help support this organization. While some very good information can be obtained at the site, there are issues that make no sense from a pro-organic perspective, such as the following snip from an article supposedly debunking the fact that Neotame can be included in USDA organic products labeled “contains organic ingredients,” which is one of the four tiers of “organic” certification. The article was written by Cornucopia and spread far and wide by the Organic Consumers Association:

None of the bloggers who perpetuate this anti-organic myth reference primary sources to substantiate their claims. As their sources, they reference one another instead of going to the source – such as the Code of Federal Regulations.” (Organic Consumers)

altAnti organic myth? The alert is out regarding this dangerous substance called Neotame that can most certainly be put in USDA “contains organic ingredients” foods, and instead of helping to alert people about this situation, the people giving the heads up and calling for the elimination of artificial substances from pure organic foods are labeled anti-organic by the people who are supposed to be the organic watch dogs of our communities. In addition, this statement by Cornucopia is a complete falsehood. All you have to do is read my article “The USDA’s Organic Deception” and click on all of the USDA and FDA source material. All of the primary reference sources are there, straight from the horse’s mouth.

So, the question arises – why would a “pro-organic” site attempt to debunk information regarding the adulteration of organic food by the USDA? Remember, the USDA and FDA are composed of the same people who brought us unlabeled GMOs in our food supply because they are considered GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe). The USDA also has a joint patent with Monsanto on the Terminator gene patent (5,723,765). And these organizations can be trusted to safeguard our organic food?

The answer to the question of why the OCA would support the USDA and FDA and attempt to eliminate opposition to the way these government agencies have taken over “organics” might just lie within the Organic Consumers Association’s (OCA) financial records:

Here are a few of the foundations that this organization has received funding from taken from Activist Cash:

John Merck Fund $200,000.00 1999 – 2002

Tides Foundation & Tides Center $45,500.00 2001 – 2002

Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors $57,176.00 2000 – 2005

The following section shows that the OCA has also received funding from the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA), which is a parent/sister corporation of the Center for Food Safety (CFS), which we will discuss in the next section:

Funding From Other Activist Groups:

Center for Public Interest Research $198,546.00 2000 – 2002

Tides Foundation & Tides Center $45,500.00 2001 – 2002

International Center for Technology Assessment $30,000.00 1998 – 1999

altAnti-organic rhetoric, or accusing someone of being anti this or anti that because you want to silence them and keep the truth from coming out is a game played by those who are bought and paid for by companies overtaking the organics industry and changing it to suit their own purposes. It is the same tactic that President Bush used when he coined the phrase “either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” Either you are with us, or you are anti-organic. Same thing. The people using this tactic count on people to trust them and not do the research themselves. So, who is truly anti-organic while pretending to be otherwise? Just follow the money trail.

International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA or ICTA) / Center for Food Safety (CFS)

Now let’s turn our sights on The International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA or ICTA) and its “sister,” the Center for Food Safety (CFS).

CTA/ICTA

This snip is taken from the CTA “about” page:

Our Mission

The International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) is a non-profit, bi-partisan organization committed to providing the public with full assessments and analyses of technological impacts on society. CTA is devoted to fully exploring the economic, ethical, social, environmental and political impacts that can result from the applications of technology or technological systems. Visit our sister organization, The Center for Food Safety. (ICTA)

The CTA site also states that it

seeks to protect the environment, individuals, and society from technologies that have advanced more rapidly than our ability to control the pollution they produce and the other social threats they pose.”

That sounds very, very good. That is, until you realize that this organization is also a proponent of man-made global warming:

altEmissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are warming the Earth’s surface temperature and changing the planet’s climate.” (ICTA)

CFS

The CFS “about” page states:

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) is a non-profit public interest and environmental advocacy membership organization established in 1997 by its sister organization, International Center for Technology Assessment, for the purpose of challenging harmful food production technologies and promoting sustainable alternatives. (CFS)

altNow let’s take a look at the funding for these “sister” organizations. It seems that these organizations have taken more money from the Rockefellers and Merck than Carter has pills.

The following funding is for CFS and CTA combined:

Funding From Foundations & Corporations

Foundation for Deep Ecology $1,670,080.00 1996 – 2003

John Merck Fund $1,305,000.00 1999 – 2005

Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors $465,000.00 2000 – 2003

(Activist Cash)

Here are some more recent financial documents obtained through Guidestar:

CFS: Rockefeller 2008 (p.76); Merck 2006 (p.61); Merck 2007 (p.47); Merck 2008 (p.52)

ICTA: Rockefeller 2oo6 (p.36)

Maybe this explains why the CFS was so happy with the passage of the S.510 food safety legislation, and practically jumped up and down with glee at the prospect of this bill being implemented.

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) applauds the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510) by the United States Congress. The bill which passed the House of Representatives by over seventy votes late yesterday will give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) a greater ability to safeguard our nation’s food system. (TrueFoodNow)

And just maybe now we can also understand why these two organizations initiated a petition trying to have silver listed as a pesticide by the EPA.

The Center for Food Safety (CFS), which along with its sister organization the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) initiated the EPA petition and enlisted the other groups which signed off on the petition, received the second largest amount of funding of any group from the John Merck Fund. (Farm Wars)

It makes sense why these organizations might have a problem admitting that Codex Alimentarius is live and in color, and applaud the power given to the FDA to put small farmers on the chopping block and boost mega-corporate food control now that we see who is helping to fund them – Rockefeller and Big Pharma.

Money Talks

altDon’t bite the hand that feeds you!

Maybe this is why certain large non-profit activist organizations that we depend on deny that Codex, which leads directly to the systematic adulteration of our organic food supply, is being implemented daily, when it is clear that we are eyeballs deep right now.

Think of Codex implementation like a 100 mile endurance ride. It is accomplished one mile at a time. During the course of the ride there comes a time when the only option available is to finish the ride because going back is farther and may be more difficult than simply staying the course. At that point one is committed, and inextricably bound to finish one way or another. However, it is only when the final mile is finished and one arrives at the intended destination, that the ride is actually “completed.”

So, while people in high places play word games and use sleight of hand trickery leading us to believe that Codex is not being implemented, organics are still what we think they are, and the USDA and FDA are here to protect us and need more power to police our food supply, we are quickly reaching the point of no return in the race to save our food supply. These people are committed to the ride and are bound and determined to finish just what they have started, yet can still claim that Codex has not been implemented because the ride is not finished yet. They still have some distance to go.

We are smack dab in the middle of a food freedom deception so staggering that no one or nothing is immune from suspicion. We have by no means “finished” the Codex ride, but are well on our way to being inextricably bound by deception to stay the course that the United Nations dictates through the machinations of organizations funded by the likes of Rockefeller and Big Pharma. And that is a course leading straight to full Codex compliance, which means saying goodbye to healthy, pure organic food and vitamins. A globalist with organic lipstick is still a globalist.

We need to understand that nobody will fight this fight for us, much less the people being funded by Rockefeller and Merck. We need to stand up on our own and just say no! We need to support our local farmers and grow as much food as we can on our own. We need to do this now, and not wait for our “knight in shining armor” non-profit organizations suckling from the Rockefeller and Merck teats to save us. It is up to you and me to take this fight to the streets.

For those of you who think that it is no big deal that the Rockefellers and Merck fund these organizations, I would like to ask the following questions:

  • Is it too much to ask that the people supposedly fighting for our food freedom NOT take money from the very entities we are fighting against?
  • Isn’t there some sort of conflict of interest there?
  • How can you keep feeding from the same trough year after year and not be part of the herd?
  • At what point do you betray the confidence of those around you and pay your dues to the hand that feeds you?

Some day, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me.” (IMDB)

© 2011 Barbara H. Peterson

 
NEOTAME THE NEW ASPARTAME Print E-mail

By Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

Just when we thought that buying “Organic” was safe, we run headlong into the deliberate poisoning of our organic food supply by the FDA in collusion with none other than the folks who brought us Aspartame. NutraSweet, a former Monsanto asset, has developed a new and improved version of this neurotoxin called Neotame.

Neotame has similar structure to aspartame — except that, from it’s structure, appears to be even more toxic than aspartame. This potential increase in toxicity will make up for the fact that less will be used in diet drinks. Like aspartame, some of the concerns include gradual neurotoxic and immunotoxic damage from the combination of the formaldehyde metabolite (which is toxic at extremely low doses) and the excitotoxic amino acid. (Holisticmed.com)

But surely, this product would be labeled! NOT SO!!! For this little gem, no labeling required. And it is even included in USDA Certified Organic food.

The food labeling requirements required for aspartame have now been dropped for Neotame, and no one is clear why this was allowed to happen. Neotame has been ruled acceptable, and without being included on the list of ingredients, for:

  • USDA Certified Organic food items.
  • Certified Kosher products with the official letter k inside the circle on labels. (Janet Hull)

Let me make this perfectly clear. Neotame does not have to be included in ANY list of ingredients! So, if you buy processed food, whether USDA Certified Organic or not, that food most likely will contain Neotame because it is cost-effective, and since no one knows it is there, there is no public backlash similar to what is happening with Aspartame. A win/win situation!

But that’s not all. Just love chowing down on that delicious steak? Well, that cow most likely will have been fed with feed containing…..you guessed it…..Neotame! A product called “Sweetos,” which is actually composed of Neotame, is being substituted for molasses in animal feed.

“Sweetos is an economical substitute for molasses. Sweetos guarantees the masking of unpleasant tastes and odor and improves the palatability of feed. This product will be economical for farmers and manufacturers of cattle feed. It can also be used in mineral mixture,” said Craig Petray, CEO, The NutraSweet Company, a division of Searle, which is a part of Monsanto. (Bungalow Bill)

Why would we feed animals food that is so distasteful that we would have to mask the unpleasantness with an artificial sweetener? Most animals will not eat spoiled, rancid feed. They know by the smell that it is not good. Enter Sweetos (Neotame). Just cover up the unpleasant tastes and odors, and you can feed them anything you want to, courtesy of the oh, so considerate folks at Monsanto and company.

But of course, Monsanto is no longer associated with NutraSweet. In the time-honored tradition of covering its assets, Monsanto has a proven track record of spinning off controversial portions of its company that generate too much scrutiny, such as it did with the Solutia solution.

Says the Farm Industry News, “Monsanto, which has long resided in the crosshairs of public scorn and scrutiny, appears to have dodged at least one bullet by spinning off its industrial chemical business into a separate entity called Solutia a couple of years ago. Solutia has since been hammered by lawsuits regarding PCB contamination from what were once called Monsanto chemical plants in Alabama and other states” (Source Watch)

So what is the solution to this problem? Buy local organic food, know your local farmer, and don’t buy processed foods whether they are labeled “Organic” or not. This requires a drastic change in lifestyle that most will not want to make. For those who choose to ride the wheel of chance by succumbing to this genocidal adulteration of our food supply by those who stand to profit from our sickness and early demise, my only comment is….it is your choice. But for those of us who have decided to fight this battle one bite at a time by hitting these sociopaths in the pocketbook where it hurts……viva la revolucion!

(C) 2010 Barbara H. Peterson

UPDATE: For an in-depth look at this with source material from government sites, please go here: The USDA’s Organic Deception

 


Page 1 of 2

© Copyright Off The Radar | Supplied by SPF Websites