Too much caffeine in food has FDA worried, considering regulations
(RNN) - Caffeine is being added to foods more and more these days. But the caffeine craze has caused the Food and Drug Administration to look into the possibility regulating America’s favorite drug.
Last week, Wrigley announced it will release a new gum that will contain a half cup of coffee’s worth in each stick. The new “energy gum” is just one example of a recent trend that has seen caffeine added to everything from granola bars to jelly beans, and even water.
However, the FDA says that so many caffeinated foods could be harmful, especially to children, and the agency plans to investigate the effects.
“Our concern is about caffeine appearing in a range of new products, including ones that may be attractive and readily available to children and adolescents, without careful consideration of their cumulative impact,” said Michael R. Taylor, the deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at the FDA, in a press release.
“The proliferation of these products in the marketplace is very disturbing to us,” he added.
Taylor claimed that so much caffeine added to foods put children at risk of “excess caffeine consumption” and that the agency needs to better understand the effects, as well as determine what are safe consumption levels.
In the Q & A press release, Taylor was asked if it is possible that the FDA would set age restrictions for purchasing of caffeine.
“We have to be practical; enforcing age restrictions would be challenging,” he said. “For me, the more fundamental questions are whether it is appropriate to use foods that may be inherently attractive and accessible to children as the vehicle to deliver the stimulant caffeine and whether we should place limits on the amount of caffeine in certain products.”
The concern over caffeine comes at a time when various levels of government have been at odds with beverage manufacturers over caffeine regulation.
In April, a congressional study titled, What’s All the Buzz About? claimed that many energy drinks were misleadingly labeled as “dietary supplements” and often target-marketed toward adolescents. The drinks also contained high amounts of caffeine that were deemed harmful by the FDA.
“Caffeine toxicity is a concern, especially for children and adolescents, who are the frequently targeted demographic for energy drink companies,” the report said.
The report also cited the American Academy of Pediatrics, which said “caffeine can produce harmful health effects in adolescents, including cardiovascular problems, anxiety, insomnia, digestive problems, dehydration, and others.”
Attempts to regulate caffeine are not new. As the libertarian-leaning magazine Reason pointed out, cries to regulate the drug have been around since at least 1980 when the FDA began looking into regulating added caffeine in foods.
No new regulations were created from the FDA proceedings. However, the agency has been more vigilant in recent years when it urged caffeinated alcohol producers to remove caffeine from their drinks.
A federal ban was not issued, but several states, including Washington, Michigan, and Oklahoma, outlawed the drinks.
Taylor said that any new regulations would take much time and resources, but the FDA is ready to take the steps it deems necessary.
“We believe that some in the food industry are on a dubious, potentially dangerous path,” he said. “If necessary, and if the science indicates that it is warranted, we are prepared to go through the regulatory process to establish clear boundaries and conditions on caffeine use.”
He added “We are also prepared to consider enforcement action against individual products as appropriate.”
(via seattle-gadgets)
The FDA wants control over what foods have caffeine added.
Apparently it’s only ok to have caffeine in “traditional” items, like coffee and tea, and the FDA might even set caffeination limits for all foods and drinks.
hipsterlibertarian’s headline perfectly encapsulates the source of nearly every one of our societal problems: “Government agency X wants control over peaceful behavior Y.”
Some people simply want to control others. They use government and its monopoly on force to exert that control. Overwhelmingly, it’s for personal gain - financial, political, or psychic. Sometimes it is for (perhaps genuinely) altruistic or well-meaning reasons. They believe (incorrectly) that they know better and if they could just have more control, their machinations would yield a better and safer society. Even in the cases of the do-gooders, the result is the same: less liberty, autonomy, and prosperity for us and more power for them. And, ultimately, any purported gains in safety are always attainable - in much more efficient fashion - without an intervening government agency.
(via seattle-gadgets)
Infowars: Judge Orders Morning-after pill Available Without Prescription To People of Any Age
CNN
April 5, 2013A federal judge in Brooklyn has ordered the FDA to make the morning-after birth control pill available over the counter to people of any age without a prescription, overturning a decision by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to require a prescription for girls under 17 years old.
The FDA said it couldn’t comment because it is an ongoing legal mater.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended last year that oral contraceptives be sold over the counter without a prescription in an effort to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies in the United States. Opponents of prescription requirements say prescriptions can delay access to the drug.
How to Survive A Food Shortage
Steve Shenk tells listeners how prepare for a food shortage.
How would you feel if you found out the piece of fruit you had for lunch had been exposed to radiation? Now what if you found out that this exposure had been done intentionally? Unbeknownst to a many Americans, irradiation is an FDA-approved process of exposing food to ionizing radiation.
http://www.infowars.com/?page_id=66395
http://alexjones.efoodsdirect.com/
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
http://www.infowars.net/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/
(via infowarsdotcom)
HermannView: Pot Legalization Bills Introduced, and Why Congress Will Not Legalize Pot
February 5, 2013 - by Donny Shaw
Public polling shows that a majority of Americans now support legalizing marijuana, but will Congress even consider taking pot off the banned substances list?
Today, two members of the House — Rep. Jared Polis [D, CO] and Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D, OR] — are introducing legislation to change the federal marijuana laws. Polis’ “Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act” would regulate marijuana like alcohol, and Blumenauer’s “Marijuana Tax Equity Act” would establish a federal marijuana taxation structure. The introduction of the bills is a first step, but it doesn’t mean that there is broader institutional interest in Congress for taking up the issue of legalizing pot.
There is one big reason why Congress is not likely to take this issue up: they don’t want to bother the corporations that they rely on for funding.
Marijuana is good medicine, which means that one of the biggest funders of both political parties — the pharmaceutical industry — wants to make sure the public does not have easy access to it. Drug companies could take a significant hit in profit if it was legal for people to grow their own natural alternatives to many of their pricey, habit-forming pills. Their plan to profit from the medicinal qualities of marijuana involves capturing regulators at the DEA and FDA, and winning special approval for selling drugs made from marijuana byproducts while keeping marijuana itself illegal for everyone else.
Drug companies like Pfizer and Merck spend millions each election to boost the campaigns of candidates that support their interests. The pharmaceutical industry is so powerful in Washington D.C. that they consistently manage to get their way even if it means that Congress has to abandon major pieces of its stated policy goals. For example, during the 2009 health care reform debate, which was ostensibly about lowering the cost of health care, Democrats stripped several provisions from their bill that would have helped to lower pharmaceutical costs by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, legalizing drug re-importation, and streamlining the process for bringing generic drugs to the market. The pharmaceutical companies saw this is a hit to their business, and they struck a backroom deal with the Obama Administration to get it removed.
The Polis and Blumenauer marijuana bills will be referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, where they will almost certainly be ignored and left to die. Rep. Fred Upton [R, MI] is the chairman of the committee, and he controls what bills receive hearings and/or mark-ups. According to OpenSecrets, Upton received more money from the pharmaceutical industry in 2012 than any other member of the House, and he ranks sixth on the list of pharmaceutical money recipients for all members of the House ever.
There are industries that are supportive of marijuana legalization. Agriculture and tobacco, both major donors to both parties, reportedly have plans in place for making money if marijuana became legal. But Congress rarely takes up issues that pit one big funder against another. Generally, the issues that get broad support in Congress have universal support among the impacted industries that are major investors in politics, or the major-investor industries are indifferent or are willing to strategically concede on the issue. In matters where there is division among major investors, Congress tends to side with the status quo. The money is already pouring in, so why shake things up?
So, right now, just about everyone in Congress is saying that priority number one is reducing the deficit, and legalizing marijuana would bring in billions of new revenue (Blumenauer’s office estimates $20 billion annually) while eliminating a dangerous black market and improving public health. But it won’t happen — and the reason is that Congress’s real top priority is keeping the corporations that fund their campaigns happy.
This was originally posted on OpenCongress.
Michigan Pig Farmer Figths”Feral” Label by FDA
Mike also welcomes Mark Baker of Bakers Green Acres, the Michigan farmer facing prosecution for owning pigs with “feral” distinctions.
http://bakersgreenacres.com/
[Check it Out Today]
http://www.infowarsshop.com/-Infowars-Magazine_c_65.html
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/
http://www.infowars.net/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
[Get Healthy Today!!]
http://www.infowarshealth.com/
Brave scientists and physicians working for the FDA speak out against it’s corruption
America urgently needs change at FDA because FDA is fundamentally broken, failing to fulfil its mission, and because re-establishing a proper and effectively functioning FDA is vital to the health of the nation.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the scientific review process for medical devices at FDA has been corrupted and distorted by current FDA managers, thereby placing the American people at risk. Through this letter and your action, we hope that future FDA employees will not experience the same frustration and anxiety that we have experienced for more than a year at the hands of FDA managers because we are committed to public integrity and were willing to speak out. Currently, there is an atmosphere at FDA in which the honest employee fears the dishonest employee, and not the other way around.
This is an excerpt from a letter written by FDA scientists and doctors accusing top FDA officials and attorneys of violating laws, suppressing and altering scientific findings and conclusions, abuse of power and authority, and retaliation against those who have spoken out. The scientists’ and physicians’ names have been withheld for their protection.
The letter also states that the Director of the Office of Device Evaluation (ODE) has:
- Ordered physicians and scientists to ignore FDA Guidance documents.
- Knowingly allowed subordinates to issue written disciplinary actions for failure to change scientific opinions.
- Issued illegal documents that are not publicly available and would circumvent scientific and legal requirements.
- Failed to properly document significant decisions.
- Made and allowed false statements in FDA documents.
- Allowed manufacturers to market unapproved devices.
- Removed Black Box warnings FDA experts recommended.
- Bypassed FDA experts and failed to properly label devices.
- Excluded FDA experts from meetings when manufacturers didn’t want them there.
Three specific device approvals referenced were:
- Interference by former FDA chief Andrew von Eschenbach in approval of a knee device.
- A computer-aided mammography device’s approval over the unanimous vote against it by all FDA experts after a phone call from Congressman Christopher Shays.
- Daniel Schultz’s approval of a device to prevent scar tissue in spite of the scientists’ unanimous opinion against it..
Not a single Democrat voted in favor of ending FDA raids on raw milk farmers
Via Natural News:
“Here’s some news for those who still somehow believe the political left in Washington cares about the People.
After U.S. Senator Rand Paul introduced an amendment that would have ended armed FDA raids on raw milk farmers and legalized free speech about the curative properties of medicinal herbs, nutritional supplements and superfoods, are you curious how many Democrats voted in favor of this?
Zero.Every single Democrat in the U.S. Senate believes that telling the truth about the beneficial effects of Chinese Medicine, or medicinal herbs, or nutritional supplements should be a crime that can also get you raided, shut down and imprisoned by the FDA. There is not a single Democrat who sees anything wrong with the government sending herbal product formulators to prison. There is not a single Democrat who believes that an Amish farmer has the right to milk a cow and sell that milk to their neighbor without being threatened by the government.
This is an astonishing milestone in U.S. history. When those in Washington who pretend to represent the People openly and publicly vote to crush the very liberties and freedoms they claim to protect, you no longer have a real Democracy. You have a police state.The Republicans are only slightly better on this issue, by the way. Most Republicans also voted against this amendment.”
Drop the raw milk!
Sen. Rand Paul Urges Senate to Vote to End the FDA’s Abuse of Power - 5/24/12 (by SenatorRandPaul)
FDA’s New Claim: “Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It!”
lost-and-searching-in-america:
In another outrageous power-grab, FDA says your own stem cells are drugs—and stem cell therapy is interstate commerce because it affects the bottom line of FDA-approved drugs in other states!
Why The Law Forbids The Medicinal Use Of Natural Substances
Posted: March 5th, 2012 by FreeWestRadio
According to the FDA’s legal definition, a drug is anything that “diagnoses, cures, mitigates, treats, or prevents a disease.”The problem with this definition is that there are numerous substances, as readily available and benign as found on our spice racks, which have been proven by countless millennia of human experience to mitigate, prevent and in some cases cure disease, and which cannot be called drugs according to the FDA.
How can this be? Well, the FDA has assumed for itself Godlike power, requiring that its official approval be obtained before any substance can legally be used in the prevention and treatment of disease.
The FDA’s legal-regulatory control therefore is totalitarian and Napoleonic in construct; what it does not explicitly permit as a medicine is implicitly forbidden.
Historically the FDA has required new drugs undergo expensive and elaborate multi-phased clinical trials, which are out of the grasp of any ordinary interest who might want to demonstrate the efficacy of a non-patentable (and therefore unprofitable) herb, food or spice.
The average out-of-pocket cost for obtaining a new drug approval is US$ 802 million dollars,[1] and therefore an investor putting capital into bringing to market a substance that does not lend itself to market exclusivity and therefore cannot produce a return on investment, is committing economic suicide, if not also breaking the law. The investor actually has a legally-binding fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to make a profit. And therefore, capital will not flow into any would-be commodity that can be produced or obtained with ease, including most things that grow freely on this Earth.
It is an interesting footnote in history that shortly after the Declaration of Independence, Congress declared that natural substances, e.g. water or salt, were God’s gift to mankind and that therefore products of nature should be limited in their patent protection. While this was a noble declaration, it has actually been used against those whose rights it would protect. It has forced private interests to synthetically alter natural substances — for instance the burgeoning biotech field of recombinant DNA technology, i.e. genetically modified organisms (GMOs) — for the sole reason that it guarantees them ownership/patent rights.
In fact, a medical system that legally requires it make a profit threatens to destroy and/or incriminate itself if non-patented, non-profitable natural substances or therapies are employed. It also results in so much collateral damage to those it purports to serve that it could rightly be called a modern form of human sacrifice.
As a result, instead of choosing prospective medicines logically: because they work, are easily accessible, and safe, billions of dollars flow in the exact opposite direction, capitalizing only those substances which are unnatural, and therefore while proprietary are almost invariably unsafe, and whose access and administration can be intensively controlled.
Has The Attempt To Co-opt Medicine Through the Drug-Based Model Undone Itself?
And yet, there is a silver lining to the story. Due to the fact that our bodies are ultimately constructed from the natural things (food, air and water), and obey very strict natural laws such as the well-known principle of chirality (handedness) – the fact that all amino acids in our body turn a beam of polarized light in the left-handed direction (L-lysine) and sugars to the right-handed direction (D-ribose)– one cannot simply create biologically active, synthetic drugs arbitrarily, as a mistake in handedness (or similar property) could be fatal. Nature, therefore, still provides an elegant biomolecular architecture of irreproducible intelligence and complexity, from which synthetic analogs are modeled and/or derivatives are spun.
As a result, billions of dollars of drug industry and government money (i.e. tax payer money) flow into finding lead compounds for drug development. Nature is put on the rack, if you will, and her secrets teased from her through innumerable animal and test tube experiments, in order to find compounds that can then be converted into synthetic, patented drugs.
Inadvertently, some of the very same companies and interests which require that natural substances not receive the same drug-approval status as synthetic ones, are funding research that prove basic vitamins, foods and spices are as effective or more effective – and usually much safer – than the drugs they are developing to replace or supplant them.
This means that tens of thousands of studies do exist showing that natural substances may prevent and/or treat disease, at least in the in vitro (test tube) and animal models. These results oftenconfirm traditional uses in Ayurvedic, Chinese and other traditional systems of medicine, and therefore may be compelling enough for individuals or healthcare practitioners to use the information to inform their treatment decisions.
The Case For Curcumin In the Prevention and Treatment of Disease
The government biomedical and life sciences database known as Medline contains over 21 million published study citations, and is accessible to search through engines such as Pubmed.gov. 2.6 million of them contain reference to cancer. 115,000 of them remain after applying the “Complementary Medicine” filter. 2,625 of them can be found indexed on the GreenMedInfo.com database, referencing 612 natural substances of potential value. Turmeric, and particularly its polyphenolic constituent known as curcumin, which gives the spice its golden hue, is one of the most extensively studied natural compounds of all time, with 4588 references to it on the National Library of Medicine’s bibliographic database known as Medline [as of 2.25.2012]. And yet, despite having been shown to have therapeutic value in over 500 disease states in animal and in vitro studies, it still has not been the subject of extensive human clinical research – for the reasons stated above.
GreenMedInfo.com, an open source natural medicine database, has indexed curcumin’s anti-cancer properties in over 50 cancers, with the top 10 most cancers researched in association with curcumin listed below.
Cancer Number of Articles Breast Cancer 58 Colorectal Cancer 23 Colon Cancer 51 Prostate Cancer 42 Pancreatic Cancer 24 Cancers: Drug Resistant 40 Lung Cancer 37 Liver Cancer 27 Cancer Metastasis 32 Skin Cancer15
Sources: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/substance/curcumin
As one can see curcumin holds great promise. It has been repeatedly demonstrated to possess simultaneously both chemoprotective/chemosensitizing and radioprotective/radiosensitizing properties, meaning it is capable of reducing the adverse effects on healthy cells caused by chemotherapy and radiotherapy, as well as enhance the cancer-killing properties of these conventional therapies. It also has an exceptionally high margin of safety, at least an order of magnitude greater than commonly used conventional chemotherapy agents such as 5-fluoruracil.[2]Given these facts curcumin, at the very least, should be considered an ideal candidate for use as an adjuvant in integrative cancer care, and perhaps as a first-line treatment alternative to conventional chemo-agents.
For additional information on the remarkable research supporting the use of Turmeric and Curcumin in medicine, watch the video below. Join our Facebook research page on Turmeric for updates: Turmeric – What The Research Reveals
FDA Approves Murder
**click picture for more**
OBAMA APPOINTS MONSANTO’S VICE PRESIDENT AS SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE COMMISSIONER AT THE FDA
just in case you forgot..
Folks, it just keeps getting more insane.
Michael Taylor was just appointed senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. This is the same man that was in charge of FDA policy when GMO’s were allowed into the US food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety. He “had been Monsanto’s attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA [and then] he became Monsanto’s Vice President and chief lobbyist. This month [he] became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America’s food safety czar. This is no joke.”
Here’s the full story:
You’re Appointing Who? Please Obama, Say It’s Not So!
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/blog/858
The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.
Here’s the back story.
When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply — the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods — secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried “serious health hazards,” and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.
But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn’t going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.
Dangerous Food Safety Lies
When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to “different risks” than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.
This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them — companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.
GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled — from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.
In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world’s top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.
In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation
In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies “systematically overlook the side effects” and significantly underestimate “the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others.”
The Fox Guarding the Chickens
If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto’s attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto’s vice president and chief lobbyist.
This month Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America’s food safety czar. What have we done?
The Milk Man Cometh
While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90’s, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) — injected into cows to increase milk supply.
The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitals have taken stands against rbGH. A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk — unless it was organic and therefore untreated.
Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA’s approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. But it was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.
Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.
Taylor’s disclaimer was also a lie. Monsanto’s own studies and FDA scientists officially acknowledged differences in the drugged milk. No matter. Monsanto used Taylor’s white paper as the basis to successfully sue dairies that labeled their products as rbGH-free.
Will Monsanto’s Wolff Also Guard the Chickens?
As consumers learned that rbGH was dangerous, they refused to buy the milk. To keep their customers, a tidal wave of companies has publicly committed to not use the drug and to label their products as such. Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to convince the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to make rbGH-free claims, so they went to their special friend in Pennsylvania — Dennis Wolff. As state secretary of agriculture, Wolff unilaterally declared that labeling products rbGH-free was illegal, and that all such labels must be removed from shelves statewide. This would, of course, eliminate the label from all national brands, as they couldn’t afford to create separate packaging for just one state.
Fortunately, consumer demand forced Pennsylvania’s Governor Ed Rendell to step in and stop Wolff’s madness. But Rendell allowed Wolff to take a compromised position that now requires rbGH-free claims to also be accompanied by Taylor’s FDA disclaimer on the package.
President Obama is considering Dennis Wolff for the top food safety post at the USDA. Yikes!
Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania’s governor is supporting Wolff’s appointment is to get him out of the state — after he “screwed up so badly” with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.
Ohio Governor Gets Taylor-itus
Ohio not only followed Pennsylvania’s lead by requiring Taylor’s FDA disclaimer on packaging, they went a step further. They declared that dairies must place that disclaimer on the same panel where rbGH-free claims are made, and even dictated the font size. This would force national brands to re-design their labels and may ultimately dissuade them from making rbGH-free claims at all. The Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association filed a lawsuit against Ohio. Although they lost the first court battle, upon appeal, the judge ordered a mediation session that takes place today. Thousands of Ohio citizens have flooded Governor Strickland’s office with urgent requests to withdraw the states anti-consumer labeling requirements.
Perhaps the governor has an ulterior motive for pushing his new rules. If he goes ahead with his labeling plans, he might end up with a top appointment in the Obama administration.
To hear what America is saying about GMOs and to add your voice, go to our new non-GMO Facebook Group.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.
