I have a Baking Business article about SandiK's FDA making significant progress.

How about this news:

http://www.bakingbusiness.com/news/headline_stories.asp?ArticleID=98343

F.D.A. moves forward in food protection plan

(Bakingbusiness.com, December 01, 2008)


 WASHINGTON — The Food and Drug Administration said it has made "significant progress" in protecting the nation’s food supply. The assessment comes one year after the implementation of its food protection plan, which is designed to product domestic and imported food from accidental and intentional contamination.

The plan has strategies for the prevention, intervention and response to food protection issues. Specific actions taken during the past year for prevention include the establishment of offices in five regions (China, India, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East) that export food to the United States; being a part of the Department of Health and Human Services delegation to China to address food safety issues and share ideas; the release of the CARVER self-assessment tool for the industry; and meeting with more than 200 federal, state, and local officials to address the challenges of protecting the food supply.

Other actions designed for intervention include the inspections of 5,930 high-risk domestic food establishments during fiscal year 2008 and piloting the program for inspection and sampling of high-risk companies in Denver and Minneapolis during the Democratic and [edited] national conventions.

Actions aimed at response include working with industry and the public to identify best practices for tracing fresh produce throughout the supply chain; enhancing the ability to coordinate a comprehensive response to foodborne illness events; hiring two emergency/complaint-response coordinators to improve response; and signing cooperative agreements with six states to form a Rapid Response Team to establish an all-hazards response capability for food and foodborne illness response.

Yet not all in the industry believe these actions are enough.

"The nation lacks a real plan for food protection," said Jeff Levi, executive director of Trust For America’s Health. "The staff at the F.D.A. should be commended for moving forward with some key initiatives to improve food safety, but they can only achieve limited success without the resources and multi-year planning to fundamentally fix the food safety system. America’s food safety system has not been seriously upgraded in more than 100 years and too many Americans get sick each year from preventable foodborne illnesses."


 

That's a good point, karvskitties.  Pet food usually only says "organic" as a specification, which in that case should be gmo- free.  I believe animal feed for livestock is almost always gmo, unless it is going for organic meat or dairy.  With that in mind, I will write FDA or USDA and try to get some clarification on the pet food labeling issue and remember to include that request when I sign my next petition on the matter.

More news on [edited]'s connections regarding gmo's.  I didn't know Jeffrey Smith has a blog on the Huffington Post now.  That is good news for getting the word out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/obamas-team-includes-dang_b_147188.html

[edited]'s Team Includes Dangerous Biotech "Yes Men"

Biotech "Yes Men" on [edited]'s team threaten to expand the use of dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods in our diets. Instead of giving us change and hope, they may prolong the hypnotic "group think" that has been institutionalized over three previous administrations--where critical analysis was abandoned in favor of irrational devotion to this risky new technology.

Clinton's agriculture secretary Dan Glickman saw it first hand:

"It was almost immoral to say that [biotechnology] wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . If you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . . You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view"
When Glickman dared to question the lax regulations on GM food, he said he "got slapped around a little bit by not only the industry, but also some of the people even in the administration."

By shutting open-minds and slapping dissent, deceptive myths about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) persist.

• The industry boasts that GMOs reduce herbicide use; USDA data show that the opposite is true.
• We hear that GMOs increase yield and farmer profit; but USDA and independent studies show an average reduction in yield and no improved bottom line for farmers.
• George H. W. [edited] fast-tracked GMOs to increase US exports; now the government spends an additional $3-$5 billion per year to prop up prices of the GM crops no one wants.
• Advocates continue to repeat that GMOs are needed to feed the world; now the prestigious International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development has joined a long list of experts who flatly reject GMOs as the answer to hunger.

Food Safety Lies

Of all the myths about GMOs, the most dangerous is that they are safe. This formed the hollow basis of the FDA's 1992 GMO policy, which stated:

"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."
The sentence is complete fiction. At the time it was written, there was overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own scientists that GM foods were substantially different, and could create unpredictable, unsafe, and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, diseases, and nutritional problems. They had urged the political appointees in charge to require long-term safety studies, including human studies, to protect the public.

Their concerns stayed hidden until 1999, when 44,000 pages of internal FDA memos and reports were made public due to a lawsuit. According to public interest attorney Stephen Druker, the documents showed how their warnings and "references to the unintended negative effects" of genetic engineering "were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement," in spite of scientists' protests.

"What has happened to the scientific elements of this document?" wrote FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, after reviewing the latest rewrite of the policy. "It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects."

Who flooded the market with dangerous GMOs

Thanks to the FDA's "promote biotech" policy, perilously few safety studies and investigations have been conducted on GMOs. Those that have, including two government studies from Austria and Italy published just last month, demonstrate that the concerns by FDA scientists should have been heeded. GMOs have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions in humans, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. GMOs are unsafe.

At the highest level, the responsibility for this disregard of science and consumer safety lies with the first [edited] White House, which had ordered the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry and get GM foods on the market quickly. To accomplish this White House directive, the FDA created a position for Michael Taylor. As the FDA's new Deputy Commissioner of Policy, he oversaw the creation of GMO policy.

Taylor was formerly the outside attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto, and later became their vice president. He had also been the counsel for the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC), for whom he drafted a model of government policy designed to rush GMOs onto the market with no significant regulations. The final FDA policy that he oversaw, which did not require any safety tests or labeling, closely resembled the model he had drafted for the IFBC.

Michael Taylor is on the [edited] transition team.

Genetically engineered bovine growth hormone and unhealthy milk

Taylor was also in charge when the FDA approved Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Dairy products from treated cows contain more pus, more antibiotics, more growth hormone, and more IGF-1--a powerful hormone linked to cancer and increased incidence of fraternal twins (see www.YourMilkonDrugs.com.) The growth hormone is banned in most industrialized nations, including Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. But under Michael Taylor, it was approved in the US, without labeling.

As more and more consumers here learn about the health risks of the drug, they shift their purchases to brands that voluntarily label their products as not using rbGH. Consumer rejection of rbGH hit a tipping point a couple of years ago, and since then it has been kicked out of milk from Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Subway, and at least 40 of the top 100 dairies. In 2007, Monsanto desperately tried to reverse the trend by asking the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to label their products as free from rbGH. Both agencies flatly refused the company's request.

But Monsanto turned to an ally, Dennis Wolff, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture. Wolff used his position to single-handedly declare rbGH-free labels illegal in his state. Such a policy would make it impossible for national dairy brands to declare their products rbGH-free, since they couldn't change packaging just for Pennsylvania. Wolff's audacious move so infuriated citizens around the nation, the outpouring caused the governor to step in and stop the prohibition before it took effect.

Dennis Wolff, according to unbossed.com, is being considered for [edited]'s USDA Secretary.

Although Pennsylvania did not ultimately ban rbGH-free labels, they did decide to require companies who use the labels to also include a disclaimer sentence on the package, stating that the according to the FDA there is no difference between milk from cows treated with rbGH and those not treated. In reality, this sentence contradicts the FDA's own scientists. (Is this sounding all too familiar?) Even according to Monsanto's own studies, milk from treated cows has more pus, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and IGF-1. Blatantly ignoring the data, a top FDA bureaucrat wrote a "white paper" urging companies that labeled products as rbGH-free to also use that disclaimer on their packaging. The bureaucrat was Michael Taylor.

Betting on biotech is "Bad-idea virus"

For several years, politicians around the US were offering money and tax-breaks to bring biotech companies into their city or state. But according to Joseph Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a 2004 report on this trend, "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable. This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials." He said it "remains a money-losing, niche industry."

One politician who caught a bad case of the bad-idea virus was Tom Vilsack, Iowa's governor from 1998-2006. He was co-creator and chair of the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership in 2000 and in 2001 the Biotech Industry Organization named him BIO Governor of the Year.

Tom Vilsack was considered a front runner for [edited]'s USDA secretary. Perhaps the outcry prompted by Vilsack's biotech connections was the reason for his name being withdrawn.

Change, Truth, Hope

I don't know Barack [edited]'s position on GMOs. According to a November 23rd Des Moines Register article, "[edited], like [edited], may be Ag biotech ally", there are clues that he has not been able to see past the biotech lobbyist's full court spin.

-His top scientific advisers during the campaign included Sharon Long, a former board member of the biotech giant Monsanto Co., and Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate who co-chaired a key study of genetically engineered crops by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2000. -   [[edited]] said biotech crops "have provided enormous benefits" to farmers and expressed confidence "that we can continue to modify plants safely."
On the other hand, [edited] may have a sense how pathetic US GMO regulations are, since he indicated that he wants "stringent tests for environmental and health effects" and "stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice."

There is, however, one unambiguous and clear promise that separates [edited] from his [edited] and Clinton predecessors.

President [edited] will require mandatory labeling of GMOs.

Favored by 9 out of 10 Americans, labeling is long overdue and is certainly cause for celebration.

(I am told that now Michael Taylor also favors both mandatory labeling and testing of GMOs. Good going Michael; but your timing is a bit off.)

Please sign a petition asking President [edited] to make his GMO labeling plan comprehensive and meaningful.

I hear you, JJ, and will try to post any independently peer-reviewed safety studies I find.  I have some more info that just needs organizing--and my thoughts are pretty scattered today. 

I just found this on the AP:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27982669/

Food crunch opens doors to bioengineered crops
By ELAINE KURTENBACH

 Sun., Nov. 30, 2008

KUNMING, China - Zeng Yawen's outdoor laboratory in the terraced hills of southern China is a trove of genetic potential — rice that thrives in unusually cool temperatures, high altitudes or in dry soil; rice rich in calcium, vitamins or iron.

"See these plants? They can tolerate the cold," Zeng says as he walks through a checkerboard of test fields sown with different rice varieties on the outskirts of Kunming, capital of southwestern China's Yunnan province.

"We can extract the cold-tolerant gene from this plant and use it in a genetically manipulated variety to improve its cold tolerance," Zeng says.

Many researchers believe such methods are essential for a second "green revolution," now that the gains from the first, in the mid-20th century, are tapering off.

Bioengineered crops are widely grown in Canada, Argentina and the U.S., where nearly all soybeans, most cotton and a growing proportion of corn are designed for tolerance to herbicides or resistance to insects. A virus-resistant GM variety of papaya is commercially grown in Hawaii and China.

Biotechnology is bound to play an important role in the agriculture of the future, Robert Zeigler, director of the International Rice Research Institute, said in an interview with The Associated Press at IRRI's headquarters south of Manila in the Philippines.

Such crops "bring tremendous power and advantages to producers and consumers," Zeigler said, noting the potential savings from reduced use of farm chemicals and of fuel for the tractors to spread them.

After delaying the long-expected commercialization of GM grains for years, China's leaders in July endorsed a 13-year, $2.9 billion program to promote use of genetically altered crops and livestock. Beijing is on the verge of releasing an insect-resistant rice variety, Zeigler said.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is a champion of the new agriculture.

"I strongly advocate making great efforts to pursue transgenic engineering. The recent food shortages around the world have further strengthened that belief," Wen recently told Science magazine.

He praised the benefits — higher farm incomes and reduced use of pesticides — from widespread use of so-called Bt cotton engineered to prevent bollworm infestations.

The trend extends beyond China: Worldwide cultivation of bioengineered crops has expanded by over 10 percent a year for a decade, although by 2007 it still had reached only 282 million acres, an area about the size of Cuba, in 22 countries.

Vietnam is pushing ahead with an ambitious program to develop commercial GM crops to reduce reliance on imports. In May, South Korea, which already imports GM soybeans, began importing bioengineered corn to help bridge shortfalls of conventional corn after China began limiting its exports.

Last month, Brazil's National Biosafety Commission approved two new varieties of genetically modified corn seeds, after giving the green light two years ago for GM varieties of soybeans. India has followed China's example, tripling acreage of GM cotton, the only bioengineered crop it allows.

In Africa, where governments have sometimes rejected food aid shipments containing GM grains, South African scientists have completed field tests of a potato developed to fend off tuber moths. They also recently approved trials of sorghum genetically enhanced to improve the digestibility and nutritional content of the coarse grain, which thrives in arid soils.

European countries face growing pressure, under World Trade Organization rules, to open their markets to GM products. Many among the EU's 27 member nations remain wary and, backed by consumers opposed to what some call "Franken-foods," are fighting to keep genetically altered crops out of their fields and supermarkets.

"Why should we change what nature has given us, when it is everything we need?" asked Filippo De Angelis, selling newspapers at a kiosk in Rome. "I don't think we can solve the problem of world hunger through genetics."

Even in China, despite its hefty investments in the research, few are familiar with genetic modification. Some who have heard of it remain cautious.

"It's impossible to know if it's harmful to the body," said Zheng Wencai, a retired architect in Kunming shopping for soybeans in a downtown market. "There is still a global debate on this. So basically, I don't use it."

Besides papayas, China allows farmers to grow GM varieties of green peppers and tomatoes, along with several nonfood crops. But genetically modified rice and wheat are still in field tests.

[I would like to interject here that Bt63 has already contaminated non-gm rice stocks and exports as of 2007, causing the EU and other nations to reject Chinese rice.]

Those test facilities are kept under high security, both to prevent contamination of non-GM crops and to protect the country's own GM technology. Beijing seems determined not to cede its potentially huge local markets to big agribusinesses like the U.S. company Monsanto and Switzerland's Sygenta AG.
==================================

Many of the points presented here as fact are very controversial, including reduced pesticide use and  higher yields.  Statistics supporting this, even those from USDA, are not referenced.  Notice that none of the studies that demonstrate health risks are even mentioned--only "lingering doubts."   I don't feel this article is very comprehensive in it's investigation.  What is the benefit of growing more food that is potentially unsafe and and more expensive?  This is all the general public hears from mainstream media.

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/agrofuels_reality_check.pdf

Other corporations are working on crops that will contain
enzymes to assist in the process of decomposition, with
the aim of simplifying the production of ethanol. Syngenta
has applied in Europe and South Africa to import Event
3272, a maize which expresses a thermostable alphaamylase
enzyme (AMY797E) which breaks starch
into simpler molecules of carbohydrate to assist rapid
breakdown.4 It also contains a marker gene derived from
E coli.
The applications in the EU and South Africa signal that
this maize is expected to contaminate both feed and food.
It has been notified in the USA and China, but towards
the end of March 2007, the application was refused in
South Africa. Promoting an additional market for these
GM crops for energy purposes will create a synergy
between the two markets (animal feed and energy), so
that animal feed will increasingly become a by-product
of agrofuel production, thus promoting monocultures
and factory farming at the expense of sustainable and
biodiverse production systems and biodiversity itself.
This marriage of factory farming and fuel production
will make it still more difficult for countries to extricate
themselves from industrial farming.

more info on Event 3272 from APHIS regarding the Syngenta petition to deregulate:

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064807b15ea

As described in the petition, Event 3272 corn has been genetically
engineered to contain two transgenes: (1) The amy797E gene encoding the
thermostable AMY797E alpha-amylase enzyme and (2) the pmi (manA) gene
from Escherichia coli, which encodes the enzyme phosphomannose
isomerase, used as a selectable marker. The AMY797E alpha-amylase
enzyme is a chimeric, thermostable enzyme derived from three alpha-
amylase genes originating from three hyperthermophilic microorganisms
of the archael order Thermococcales. The expression of amy797E is
driven by the promoter from a corn seed storage (gamma-zein) gene,
which directs the accumulation of alpha-amylase in the corn kernel. The
pmi gene is from one of the main species of bacteria living in mammal
intestines, E. coli, and is driven by the polyubiquitin promoter from
corn.
    This genetic insert also contains the terminator sequences from two
plant pests, cauliflower mosaic virus and Agrobacterium tumefaciens.
Both of these sequences are well-characterized, and are noncoding
regulatory regions only. These sequences will not cause Event 3272 corn
to promote plant disease.

APHIS has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) in which it
presents two alternatives for the determination of nonregulated status
based on its analyses of data submitted by Syngenta, a review of other
scientific data, and field tests conducted under APHIS oversight. APHIS
is considering the following alternatives: (1) Take no action, i.e.,
APHIS would not change the regulatory status of Event 3272 corn and it
would continue to be a regulated article; or (2) the preferred
alternative, grant nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn in whole. The
EA also describes other alternatives that were initially evaluated but
rejected from further consideration in the decision process for reasons
explained in the EA.

Thanks, Carol.  I am linking to this one.  We need all the help we can get these days.

Everyone in my family thinks I am completely obsessive-compulsive for sticking a thermometer in everything I cook containing meat.  But I feel really vindicated now. 

Still, I am suspicious of all the salmonella these days.  Something isn't right with that.  The good news, although not completely comforting, is that high heat breaks a lot of harmful bonds.  (and good ones...)

And what about the 4 month old children who still have the bottle formula containing cyanuric acid, then start on vegetables contaminated with melamine from cyromazine?

http://biosafetyafrica.net/portal/DOCS/comments_maize3272.pdf

Event 3272 has been genetically modified to produce two novel proteins: a thermostable
alpha-amylase enzyme and phosphomannose isomerase, a selectable marker. The thermostable
alpha-amylase enzyme is expressed from a genetic construct consisting of segments of DNA that
presumably1 come from microorganisms of the domain Archaea, order Thermococcales, isolated
from hydrothermal vents deep below the surface of the ocean (Richardson et al 2002; Anon.
2005). This genetic construct was introduced into Event 3272 via Agrobacterium-mediated
transformation (EU Application 2006).

Other alpha-amylase enzymes are already employed to process corn to produce ethanol and
high fructose corn syrup. Since 1980, the most widely used alpha-amylase for these applications
has been isolated from the common soil bacterium Bacillus licheniformis (Richardson et al
2002). The alpha-amylase enzyme in Event 3272 is said to be superior to currently used
enzymes by virtue of its higher activity at the pH of the ethanol production process (pH = 4.5)
and its greater thermostability (Ibid). Currently used enzymes are not incorporated into maize.
Instead, they are produced using GM bacteria in contained fermentation vats, then extracted and
introduced into the ethanol production process. It should also be noted that a version of the
alpha-amylase enzyme incorporated into Event 3272 has recently become available as a “standalone”
product (“Ultra-Thin” enzyme) for use in ethanol plants in the traditional manner. It is
being offered for sale by Diversa Corporation in partnership with Valley Enzymes (Diversa
2005). Syngenta holds a major stake in Diversa. The commercial availability of this enzyme
means whatever advantages it might offer can be had without use of Event 3272.

In short, ethanol production with Event 3272 would have several unique and radically new
features distinguishing it from traditional ethanol production that NDA should carefully
consider:
1) The enzyme is incorporated in maize kernels rather than generated in contained fermentation
systems. Incorporation into maize means that Event 3272 and its enzyme can spread to other
maize plants through cross-pollination, or enter the food and feed supply by seed dispersal or
human error. Promises of containment simply cannot be taken seriously given the
horrendous record of the biotechnology industry in this regard.

2) The enzyme in Event 3272 is derived from novel deep-sea organisms that have never been a
part of the human food supply.

3) The deep-sea organisms are said to be from the domain Archaea, one of three domains into
which all living organisms are classified (the others being Bacteria and Eucarya ). Very little
is presently known about organisms of the Archaea domain, as they were only recently
discovered, and are ubiquitous mainly in inaccessible regions such as the deep sea.

4) The enzyme is not only from an unfamiliar source, but its corresponding gene sequence is an
artificial construct made by randomly mixing alpha-amylase gene segments from three
Thermococcales microorganisms (Richardson et al 2002).

1 It is interesting to note that Richardson et al (2002) seem uncertain as to the origin of the three separate alphaamylase
genes upon which the genetic construct is based: “Phylogenetic analysis revealed that all three
enzymes…are likely to be from organisms closely related to the order of Thermococcales.”

This is the docket link that I was referring to above:

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064807b15ea

We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has received a petition from Syngenta Seeds, Inc., seeking a determination of nonregulated status for corn designated as transformation event 3272, which has been genetically engineered to produce a microbial enzyme that facilitates ethanol production. The petition has been submitted in accordance with our regulations concerning the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms and products. In accordance with those regulations, we are soliciting comments on whether this genetically engineered corn is likely to pose a plant pest risk. We are also making available for public comment an environmental assessment for the proposed determination of nonregulated status. …

Agency: APHIS          Document Type: NOTICES          Comments Due: Jan 20, 2009 11:59:59 PM EST
Docket ID: APHIS-2007-0016         Document ID: APHIS-2007-0016-0001
Date Posted:   Nov 19, 2008
==================================
info on event 3272 from Center for Food Safety

http://biosafetyafrica.net/portal/DOCS/comments_maize3272.pdf

 

I really don't know what's going on anymore.

Trudy and Caylee, I found this link:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/INFANT_FORMULA?SITE=RIPAW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I wish everyone a happy, peaceful, tasty Thanksgiving!

I am really proud of Madigan's statements.  She is right on it.

Paradossi, on the other hand,

"Mead Johnson spokesman Paradossi said he was frustrated [He thinks he is frustrated!  I bet a lot of parents and other people are a lot more frustrated than he is.  Like frustrated that despite everything we know about the situation in China, his company hasn't done tests and informed the public of the cyanuric acid in his company's formula!]that the FDA had provided inaccurate information for worldwide distribution by the AP. He said the FDA informed his company of the test results, as well as the inaccurate disclosures only Wednesday, during an emergency conference call the agency staged with major manufacturers and the industry's trade group. During a similar call Monday, the FDA told the industry about the upcoming AP investigative report.

A spreadsheet the AP obtained from the FDA under a Freedom of Information Act request stated that Mead Johnson's Infant Formula Powder, Enfamil LIPIL with Iron contained traces of melamine."
 ****************************************************************
When actually, excuse me, it was even higher levels of cyanuric acid--also unacceptable, Paradossi.  Maybe Mead should have released the information themselves as soon as they knew and recalled their product.  The confusion may have been avoided.  Maybe they better figure out what the heck is going on, how it's happening, and get rid of it---or get out of the formula business!