Demonstrating the lack of concern held by regulatory agencies for public safety or public opinion as well as the increasing attempts to become compliant with Codex Alimentarius regulations, the FDA has recently expanded the amount of ionized radiation that can be used to treat unrefrigerated raw meat.
As reported by Food Safety News, the two new policies decided upon by the FDA were issued in response to two petitions filed in 1999 by the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
While the previous policy was that only refrigerated or frozen meats could be irradiated, the new rule allows for the irradiation of unrefrigerated raw meat. The second rule change allows for increasing the dose of ionizing radiation in poultry from 3.0 kGY to 4.5 kGy.
Although a period for public comment is always set aside for regulatory agency decisions regarding potential changes to policy, the FDA promptly ignored the many comments it received from individuals all over the country as well as consumer advocacy groups which requested the denial of the two FSIS petitions.
The response from the FDA was that all of these comments, made by individuals and by groups such as Public Citizen and the Center for Food Safety, “were of a general nature” and “did not contain any substantive information that could be used in a safety evaluation of irradiated poultry.” This statement was made regarding both the poultry irradiation rule and the passage of a new meat temperature rule.
Predictably, the FDA has defended its decision by circular logic that flies in the face of science and common sense. The agency is claiming that “irradiating unrefrigerated meat was not found to increase meat’s toxicity, change the food’s nutritional properties or increase the likelihood of certain bacteria thriving on meat; therefore FDA has determined that this is a safe application for the process.”
Of course, while the FDA claims that irradiation is not found to increase toxicity or change nutritional properties, the very reason that the FDA has jurisdiction over food irradiation to begin with is because the process of irradiation can do just these very things. Even the FDA admits that, because irradiation “can affect the characteristics of the food,” it is considered a “food additive.” Thus, because food additives fall under the purview of the FDA, irradiation is regulated (or not) by the agency.
By allowing for higher doses of irradiation in food, the FDA is knowingly complicit in covering up unsanitary food production practices by major corporations as well as accepting the inclusion of clearly harmful material (i.e. radiation) into the food supply. Keep in mind, irradiation is mostly used by corporations in order to cover up deplorable manufacturing conditions and dangerous food contamination.
However, much like the FDA’s position on genetically modified food, even the concept of consumer choice is nothing more than a smokescreen.
For instance, while the FDA states that all irradiated foods entering the supply chain must be accompanied by a radura symbol indicating the irradiation process, the fact is that this symbol is only required to be presented to the “first consumer,” not the average person actually buying and eating the food. More often than not, the “first consumer” is actually the high-level distributor of the food. Needless to say, the radura symbol is removed in short order before the goods are shipped to the market and long before they reach the people who purchase them directly.
Indeed, the FDA has made moves to derail consumer knowledge even further with relatively recent attempts to re-label irradiated food as “pasteurized” so as to obscure the real nature of the “treatment” process. In fact, the proposal even states that an “alternate term to ‘irradiation’” may be considered for use with no further suggestion as to what this term may be.
Therefore, one legitimately wonders whether or not, if the proposal should go through, the selected terminology will be even more obfuscating than that of “pasteurization.”
Lastly, it is important to note that the FDA has been making clear strides toward harmonization with Codex Alimentarius guidelines for at least the last ten years. As I discuss in my book Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom, Codex Alimentarius itself has set the acceptable limit of food irradiation at 10 kGy with loopholes that actually allow for unlimited levels of irradiation.
With this in mind, it would be well within reason to expect to see the acceptable levels of food irradiation raised even higher in the very near future.
 Federal Register Proposed Rule – 72 FR 16291 April 4, 2007: Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling of Food, P.1. *Source no longer readily available online.*
Turbeville, Brandon. Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom. 2010. The Book Patch. False Flag Publications. P.79.
 Smith, Jeffrey. Seeds of Deception. YES! Books. 2003.
These two rules, which were enacted quietly and without any media fanfare (big surprise), come more than a decade after the U.S. Department of Agriculture‘s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) first petitioned the FDA for their passage back in 1999. And in the years that followed, numerous consumer advocacy and food safety groups decried the proposals, warning that irradiation is dangerous.
But the FDA ignored all the comments made by these groups, which included reputable names like Public Citizen and the Center for Food Safety (CFS), and continued forward with its irradiation agenda. According to Food Safety News(FSN), the FDA actually went so far as to belittle the merit of the input given by these groups, referring to them as “general” comments that did “not contain any substantive information that could be used in a safety evaluation of irradiated poultry.”
Numerous health practicioners have been known to utter a saying along the lines of ‘if it rots, it is likely good for you’. I don’t necessarily agree with this saying when considering that conventional food rots and is loaded with pesticides, GMOs, and other problematic substances, but the root of the saying holds very true. The reason that rotting food is good for you is that these foods contain beneficial bacteria that is absolutely essential for your overall health. Fermented foods are often the quickest to go bad, and it is no coincidence these items contain the most bountiful amount of probiotic bacteria.
Scientific research in recent times has confirmed time and time again that bacteria (through influencing gut health) is absolutely essential for proper immune function, and it even directly impacts your mental health. That’s why the rampant use of antibiotics is fueling mass mental illness and chronic conditions as doctors prescribe antibiotics for everything from the common cold to the seasonal flu — without even recommending the addition of probiotic bacteria. Is it any wonder that the immunity of most individuals is seriously compromised?
There’s another popular saying: ‘health starts in the gut’. And that one I fully agree with.
And by sterilizing all conventional foods of key bacteria content through mass ‘nuking’ of the products, the issue is only exacerbated. And it’s already being done through irradiation of the food supply, pasteurization techniques, and more. Now, this microwave zap technology seeks to promote profits through desecrating the food supply even further.
As if you needed another reason to avoid conventional foods full of GMOs, additives, artificial sweeteners, and other problematic substances – well MicroZap may soon give you another.
Widows – excellent better halves Nowadays, dating websites for widows are popular. If you are seeking love , www.12345.com searching for your soulmate on widow dating sites will certainly be the simplest and also the fastest method to locate your life partner no matter his home land, age, occupation, race, and so on. It is no...
Kedua cara itu adalah : Tapi sayangnya, sebagai pemain pemula biasanya agak rumit untuk mengenal bedanya antara pilihan yang benar & langkah yang kurang bagus. Dengan kesatu jenis provider melakukan puluhan jenis menu pasangan guna diharuskan akan para pemasang melegakan berlandaskan besarnya selera kecenderungan guna mengantongi. Pasangan slot online mengalami heboh dalam tahun 2020 maupun...
Jackpot merupakan hadiah dengan terakumulasi yang seseorang juara. Karena itu tidak heran kalau banyak yang menyukai jenis sarana yang sebuah ini. Dalam intinya bermain Slot Online tepat memang mungkin dilakukan orang banyak. Permain online mengusulkan lebih banyak perjudian untuk dipakai, peluang juara yang melebihi tinggi, kepandaian perjudian pilih-pilih dan inventif untuk rata-rata. Tak cuma aturannya...
Berapa jumlah alternatif Slot Online? Mereka dikonsep untuk mencakupi anda gradasi permainan slot kasino yang sesungguhnya. Masih banyak sedang variasi yang disebabkan oleh permainan slot yang mungkin lebih menarik hati. Pertandingan online memberikan lebih banyak permainan untuk dipakai, peluang sukses yang amat tinggi, kemampuan perjudian terbatas dan inovatif untuk orang banyak.. Apabila kamu telah menjatuhkan...
K. Rowling, Stephen King, Zora Neale Hurston, and so lots of other writers you should not just explain to tales. They use their terms to explain total worlds and time intervals, and their audience are transported as a result. Descriptive writing is utilised just about everywhere. Dissertation Writing Services Singapore Dissertation Service Can You Pay...