USDA Chooses Big Business over Kids

I got a note from the Weston A. Price foundation about how the USDA plans to slip irradiated food into the school systems. It really angers me that government has been so corrupted by big business that we can't even take for granted a kid getting a health meal at school. [img]/forums/images/icons/mad.gif[/img]

I will post their note below.

What's going on in your town?


WESTON A. PRICE FOUNDATION

ACTION ALERT - October 16, 2003

USDA "Education" Project Distorts Truth About Food Irradiation; Contact Your School Board

Information about food irradiation that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has begun offering to school districts across the country is inaccurate and misleading, according to the consumer group Public Citizen. The agency's new information program follows its decision in May to permit irradiated beef in the National School Lunch Program.

The USDA last week posted its materials on its website http://mailhost.groundspring.org/cgi...=42206:980844. It is urging all state food service directors to use them. The materials were developed by the Minnesota Department of Education as part of an "education" campaign to promote irradiation in three Minnesota school districts. The USDA is now planning to expand the campaign nationwide. The campaign has come under fire since it was revealed that the food irradiation industry exerted undue influence over the direction of the program, to the exclusion of consumer groups.

The food irradiation industry has not gotten much traction in the marketplace, so its next scheme is to get the federal government to bail it out by serving irradiated ground beef to unsuspecting schoolchildren.

The "education" project was such a failure in Minnesota that one school district - Sauk Rapids - dropped out because officials there felt they would be promoting irradiation instead of educating parents and students about it. The other two districts - Spring Lake Park and Willmar - decided against ordering irradiated ground beef for the 2003-2004 school year. In addition, a number of California school districts - in Los Angeles, Berkeley, Ukiah and Point Arena - have banned irradiated foods. Other school districts that have said they will not serve irradiated foods include Boston, Cleveland, New York City and San Diego.

The USDA's materials contain a "Public Relations Tool Kit," describing how to promote irradiation at the school district level. Misleading statements in the material include:

- "Irradiation produces no unique chemicals."

Reality: Researchers have known for more than 30 years that irradiation causes the formation of chemical byproducts, including a class of chemicals called 2-ACBs, which recently were shown to promote the cancer-development process in rats.

- "The best scientific studies, conducted over many years, show no adverse health effects from consuming irradiated food."

Reality: Animals fed irradiated foods in experiments dating back 50 years have suffered dozens of health problems, including premature death, mutations, reproductive problems, immune system disorders, tumors, organ damage and stunted growth. Further, there is a lack of research on the potential health effects of feeding irradiated foods to children, who are more susceptible than adults to adverse effects of consuming toxic substances.

- "Vitamin losses from irradiation are insignificant and are lower than those from canning or freezing."

Reality: Studies have shown that some foods can lose up to 95 percent of their vitamin content when irradiated.

- "There is no link between food irradiation and nuclear power or nuclear weapons."

Reality: Radioactive cobalt-60, produced by a nuclear reaction, is used to irradiate food. Cesium-137, a waste product of nuclear bomb production, can legally be used for irradiation, though it is not now being used. All forms of ionizing radiation - whether generated by an electronic beam or a radioactive isotope - cause the same adverse effects in food.

- "Irradiation results in little if any change to the appearance, taste and nutritional value of food."

Reality: Numerous studies indicate that irradiation can corrupt the flavor, odor, appearance and texture of food. Beef can smell like a wet dog, pork can turn red, fruit and vegetables can become mushy, and eggs can become runny. A Consumer Reports study on irradiated foods published in August 2003 found that irradiated ground beef had a "singed hair" taste.

- "NASA has been irradiating food for its astronauts since the 1970s…and experience with NASA astronauts indicates compounds formed during food irradiation pose no unique risk to human beings." Reality: According to NASA, less than 2 percent of the food consumed by astronauts on space missions is irradiated, and eating it is optional. The astronauts are not required to eat irradiated food after their missions have been completed, so this is not a valid example for the USDA to use.

ACTION TO TAKE:

Call your school board president and urge him or her to pass a ban on irradiated food in your district! To contact your school board president, check on your school district website or call the general number for your school and ask to be connected to the board president.

If you want to work further to enact a ban in your district, download the School Lunch Organizing Kit at http://mailhost.groundspring.org/cgi...d=42207:980844

Having a choice...

I was watching either 60 minutes or 48hrs when they did a piece on meat packing plants and did you know that USDA allow up to but no more than 5% fecus in ground beef ???
That's why they require restraunts to cook hamburgers well done to kill the bacteria.

bombarding beef with a few rays I don't think is quite as harmfull as the extremist claim, but I don't think its right to use our children as guinee pigs either.

What I don't understand is why don't they use ultra violet light ?

If you are that bothered, then just pack you kids a lunch made from home.

Who gave you all this information that counters the USDA's data?

It's become quite obvious that big business owns the government at the hight levels. A bigger profit is more important than the quality of our lives.

<font color="blue"> ( A bigger profit is more important than the quality of our lives. ) </font color>

I certainly hope you don't rely on the government for your quality of life.

Yes big business will kill their customers, knowingly to make a profit. [img]/forums/images/icons/shocked.gif[/img]

Your post is filled with the biggest load of bunk I've heard in a long time. All of the propaganda in your post is straight out of the organic radicals playbook of misinformation and scare tactics. [img]/forums/images/icons/mad.gif[/img]

NASA and the U.S. Military have been consuming irradiated food for years (along with the U.S. public!). The Europeans use gamma irradiation, (usually from Cobalt60 or Cesium137) widely for sterilizing foods for consumer use. There's a lot more available from the American Council on Science and Health if you want to expand your horizons a bit.

Sorry, but I'm far more inclined to believe a group of educated physicians and Ph.D.'s banded together by concern for the public and focused on scientific methodology than organic radicals claiming the sky is falling and espousing inaccurate information. [img]/forums/images/icons/mad.gif[/img]

&gt;&gt;I'm far more inclined to believe a group of educated physicians and Ph.D.'s banded together by concern for the public and focused on scientific methodology than organic radicals claiming the sky is falling and espousing inaccurate information.


Ah yes, the ACSH a nice, neutral balanced organization of concerned scientists that will always publish what is in the best interest of the average consumer regardless...

ACSH calls itself "a science-based, public health group that is directed by a board of 300 leading physicians and scientists ... providing mainstream, peer reviewed scientific information to American consumers."

Here is a list of the ACSH's biggest financial supporters:

ALCOA Foundation
Allied Signals Foundation, Inc.
American Cyanamid Company
American Meat Institute
Amoco Foundation, Inc.
Anheuser-Busch Foundation
Archer Daniels Midland Company
Ashland Oil Foundation
Boise Cascade Corporation
Bristol-Myers Fund, Inc.
Burger King Corporation
Campbell Soup Company
Carnation Company
Chevron Environmental Health Center
Ciba-Geigy Corporation
Coca-Cola Company
Consolidated Edison
Cooper Industries Foundation
Adolph Coors Foundation
Crystal Trust
Shelby Cullum Davis Foundation
Dow Chemical Canada, Inc.
Dow Corning Corporation
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours &amp; Company
Ethyl Corporation
Exxon Corporation
FMC Foundation
Ford Motor Company Fund
Frito-Lay
General Electric Foundation
General Mills, Inc.
General Motors Foundation
Gerber Products Company
Rollin M. Gerstacker Foundation
Hershey Foods Corporation Fund
Heublein, Inc.
ICI Americas Inc.
Johnson &amp; Johnson
Johnson's Wax Fund, Inc.
Kellogg Company
Ester A. and Joseph Klingenstein Fund, Inc.
David H. Koch Charitable Foundation
Kraft Foundation
Kraft General Foods
Licensed Beverage Information Council
Thomas J. Lipton Foundation, Inc.
M&amp;M Mars
Merck Company Foundation
Mobil Foundation, Inc.
Monsanto Fund
National Agricultural Chemicals Association
National Dairy Council
National Soft Drink Association
National Starch and Chemical Foundation
Nestlé
Samuel Roberts Nobel Foundation, Inc.
Northwood Institute
NutraSweet Company
John M. Olin Foundation Inc.
Oscar Mayer Foods
Pepsico Foundation Inc. (Pepsi-Cola)
Pfizer Inc.
Pillsbury Company
PPG Industries Foundation
Procter &amp; Gamble Fund
Ralston Purina
Rohm &amp; Haas Company
Salt Institute
Sarah Scaife Foundation, Inc.
Schultz Foundation
G.D. Searle Charitable Trust
Joseph E. Seagrams &amp; Sons, Inc.
Shell Oil Company Foundation
Stare Fund
Starr Foundation
Sterling Drug, Inc.
Stouffer Company
Stroh Brewery Company
Sugar Association, Inc.
Sun Company, Inc.
Syntex Corporation
Union Carbide Corporation
Uniroyal Chemical Co.
USX Corp.
Warner-Lambert Foundation
Wine Growers of California

...now, tell me again why we beleive anything they say is not biased?

<font color="blue">now, tell me again why we beleive anything they say is not biased </font color>

Per their web site.....
<font color="green">Who funds ACSH?

ACSH receives financial support from about 300 different sources, including foundations, trade associations, corporations and individuals. Its funding list is highly diversified.

Do ACSH's funders influence its policies?

No. In fact, ACSH has often spoken out in ways that could jeopardize its support from particular funders. For example, ACSH's warnings about cigarette smoking resulted in the loss of substantial contributions from food manufacturers that had been acquired by tobacco companies. A metal pipe manufacturer withdrew its support after ACSH defended the safety of the proper use of plastic pipes. Fortunately, however, these incidents are exceptions to the rule. The great majority of ACSH's supporters accept and endorse its "no strings attached" funding policy and respect its commitment to positions that reflect valid, up-to-date scientific evidence. </font color>

Let's see, if it (1) it costs money to conduct research; and (2) money has to come from somewhere, where do you suggest it come from??? [img]/forums/images/icons/crazy.gif[/img] Your taxes? NO, that would entail government (which we all know is corrupt, after all - they have been "poisoning" our astronauts and military personnel for years with that EVIL irradiated food!)

What about private individuals (where they cite some of their $$$ comes from)? Wait, they all must have sinister motives too - I mean, any individual who donates any appreciable sum to the organization like ACSH is probably a rich company exec. who is trying to shove his product down the proverbial gullet of the American public.

And companies themselves? Oh, we ALL KNOW every last one of them is corrupt. Corrupting us with employment, products, services, etc. that have a deleterious effect on the quality and quantity of our lives (after all, if that life expectancy keeps going up as it has continued to for the past hundred years or so, what will we do???) (I'm curious - how many evil products from those corrupt companies do you have/use? After all, how would any sane individual use any product from a company that OBVIOUSLY has no concern for the people who purchase its product? - Rotten to the core, right?)

Those dastardly companies! Imagine them creating drugs to keep us alive, safety equipment to keep us from killing ourselves and increasing production while decreasing spoilage/contamination of our food supply!!! ALL EVIL!! EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM!!! [img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

Look, I don't give a flying leap whether or not you trust the ACSH or not. My point, (and it still a valid one) is you have to trust someone at some point in life. The original poster of this thread is "conspiracy obsessed" that the Government is out to sacrifice our children in order to introduce an unsafe food product in to the market place - the SAME GOVERNMENT that implemented quality and freshness standards in order to protect the public health at large.

You are a conspiracy theorist regarding the ACSH - in that regardless of what they say, regardless of any evidence they present, they MUST BE LYING. That's fine too.

My point is really not about the validity of the ACSH as a truthful organization - my point is that I choose to believe the majority of those in the scientific community and the government when it comes to the safety of irradiated food.

Believe what you will-

Oh, btw - I hear Martians are landing in D.C. tomorrow afternoon... Will you be showing up for that??? [img]/forums/images/icons/smirk.gif[/img]