A Stolen Victory During the Beer Summit–OR, How to Rewrite Congressional Votes While No One is Really Looking (It’s About Our Food)

~~By Grail Guardian

Virtually unnoticed this last week by the MSM (who’d a thunk?) while the Resident hoisted a cold one with his new BFFs was the seemingly unremarkable failure of a bill that hasn’t been in the news much, HR2749: Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. Right about now you’re probably yawning and asking, “So what, Grail?” But before you click your browser button, let’s review exactly what this bill that InfoWars.com referred to as “Totalitarian Control of the Food Supply”. (I know, I know; it’s Alex Jones. But as a friend of mine used to say, “Every once in a while even a blind squirrel gets a nut”! This time he’s got lots of company.)

[Author’s note: I apologize for all the links, but it’s hard to accuse a monster corporation with attempted genocide without backing it up.]

Let’s start with the basics: Monsanto. You know who they are, right? If you’re not familiar, they’re basically the agricultural equivalent of Goldman Sachs. Big business, big restriction of competition, big health issues (in case you forgot Monsanto owned the rights to Aspartame when it was patented), and most importantly big buddies with the big “O”. Monsanto is the largest grower of fruits and vegetables in the world. They also manufacture the herbicide RoundUp. Sounds innocent so far, right? Bzzzzt! After RoundUp became the most widely used weed killer in the world, the sneaky little bastages at Monsanto decided that since virtually no one pays attention to agriculture anymore they could stealthily take over not only the marketplace, but literally the world’s food supply. They started making GMOs or Genetically Modified Organisms. And yes, that’s as spooky as it sounds.

There are basically 2 GMOs we need to be worried about: RoundUp Ready seed and Terminator Technology (basically sterile seeds that do not reproduce after one season so the farmer must purchase more seed – from Monsanto, of course – each year). Let’s take them one at a time:

RoundUp Ready seed has been genetically altered by Monsanto so that if it is sprayed with RoundUp, the desired plant won’t be killed by the herbicide. Sounds pretty good, at least until you think that through a bit. You probably have used RoundUp yourself to kill a few weeds growing between the cracks in your driveway or back yard patio, right? Me too. You take the bottle and aim at the weed, then in a few days it withers and dies. So the rocket scientists at Monsanto decided, “Well if a little works, a lot would be much better, right?” They engineered crop seeds so that instead of targeting the weeds, farmers can spray their whole crop and kill just the weeds while the corn, soy, or canola would survive to be harvested without all the hassles. But if you follow that thought through to its logical conclusion, what that means to you and me is that farmers are now dousing our food with RoundUp before they send it off to the local store or giant food processing plant. Now I’ve never tasted the stuff, but I can tell you from the smell that RoundUp is not something I want included in my diet. Shades of DDT anyone? What’s worse, neither the farmer nor the food processing plant need to disclose to us as consumers that this food was soaked in a chemical designed to destroy living organisms. Makes me feel all warm inside. (Or is that merely the burning of my digestive tract being slowly destroyed by the simple act of eating?)

Terminator Technology or sterile seeds are the Big M’s other grab to take over the world food supply. Monsanto uses genetic engineering to develop plants that are incapable of reproducing after 1 season. This means that poor farmers throughout the world will be left without the ability to use seeds from their current crop to start next year’s crop – they must buy new seed from Monsanto each year in

In India, this is a cause for some concern as scientists fear for the livelihood of 400 million farmers and for food security in the country. Already some poorer Indian farmers have been driven to suicide. It is feared that this type of technology could be used to make the poorer farmers even more dependent.

So much for solving the world hunger crisis. Now on to our innocuous bill, HR2749. The summary provided by the Congressional Research Service tells us that our bill

Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to: (1) issue science-based performance standards to minimum…

Hmmm. “Science-based standards”. Now just who might be in the business of creating these standards? Could it possibly be the scientists at good ol’ Monsanto?

(3) inspect facilities at a frequency determined pursuant to a risk-based schedule; (4) establish a food tracing system; (5) assess fees relating to food facility reinspection and food recall;

A“food tracing system”? Seriously? Am I going to break a tooth on an RFID chip? Will this be added to my electronically distributable Health Care records gathered under HR3200:America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009? Will my food be held up until it starts to rot while it is properly” inventoried?

and (6) establish a program for accreditation of laboratories that perform analytical testing of food for import or export.

I guess this leads us to the conclusion that current labs are not accredited. Yikes!

Authorizes the Secretary to: (1) order an immediate cessation of distribution, or a recall, of food; (2) establish an importer verification program; and (3) quarantine food in any geographic area within the United States.

In other words, it’s up to the sole discretion of the Secretary (it’s not real clear to me if this refers to Tom Vilsack, the Monsanto fed Secretary of Agriculture or Obama lapdog Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services – not that there’s a difference) whether anyone can distribute food, or if food can be quarantined without due process of law. Winston? Is that you?

Provides for unique identifiers for food facilities and food importers.

There is not limitation on this. It could be required, under this law, for small farmers that sell fruit on a roadside stand, or even for people who grow their own tomatoes in the back yard. Kiss your local farm market goodbye unless they’ve got compliance bucks.

Deems a food to be adulterated if an inspection is delayed or refused.

Here’s the government double dip; first they can delay the food to be properly traced and inspected, then they can commandeer it after they held it up too long to still be fresh.

Gives the Commissioner of Food and Drugs subpoena authority with respect to a food proceeding.

Great. The FDA, who brought you such medical wonders as Aspartame, Fen Phen, and Vioxx gets to issue subpoenas against Farmer Jones down the road that had the audacity to try to grow his crop without using RoundUp on it.

Aside from my personal commentary, the less-snarky folks at FoodRenegade.com also point out:

A careful reading of the bill also reveals that HR 2749:

1. Will create duplicate fees & requirements for certified organic producers.

2. Will erode wildlife habitats in a misguided attempt to keep produce “clean” — when it is clear from the scientific evidence that it is industrialized animals that spread E.Coli 0157:H7 and Salmonella, not wild animals.

3. Will greatly increase the costs associated with safely composting manure and using it as a fertilizer for natural and organic crops.

4. Will interfere with and possibly prohibit small-scale farmers adding value to their products. This includes washing and cutting produce, creating canned jams or jellies, anything really.

5. Will require a costly electronic filing system that may well put farmers using paper records out of business, including many of our Amish brothers and sisters who can not comply with the electronic filing standards without violating their religious principles.

6. Will give the federal government the power to ban raw milk sales.

Ironically, it was the politicians own attempts at back door deals and sneakiness that appears to have sunk this ship during the legitimate House vote.

The bill was voted on by suspending the rules, limiting discussion to less than an hour, and not allowing any amendments that could have clarified who these new rules should affect. In the course of the last 24 hours, the language of the bill had been changed three times, and most representatives didn’t have the chance to read the latest version before being required to vote.

The only reason this bill is NOT the current law of the land is that it did not win enough of a majority to pass.

If you’re paying attention to the above quote written on July 29th, you should be scratching your head and saying, “huh?” So now it’s time for the kicker. The bill was voted on in the House of Representatives on July 29, 2009, and here is a direct copy from govtrack:

Jul 29, 2009: This bill failed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority. This usually occurs for non-controversial legislation. The totals were 280 Ayes, 150 Nays, 3 Present/Not Voting. Vote Details.

That was the way the page read yesterday when I started to write this article. When I went back to source some material, I suddenly noticed a spiffy little amendment:

Jul 30, 2009: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 283 Ayes, 142 Nays, 8 Present/Not Voting. Vote Details.

That’s right, America! While you were watching Obama, Gates, Crowley, and Biden sing “Ein Prosit”, Congress was busy changing the vote on this bill because they (read Pelosi, Obama, Monsanto) didn’t like the outcome!

A little critical analysis of the changed votes shows that a couple of different things:

1) The members of the “Blue Dog Democrat Coalition” were obviously strong-armed into submission (along with a few non-proclaimed Blue Dog-type friends) when the Speaker didn’t get the results she wanted .

2) The RINOS (Republicans in Name Only) were easily bought off once again. There is no difference between the 2 major parties.

3) John Murtha needs to take his Alzheimer’s medications.

Here’s the breakdown:

Congressional District	“Representative”	Change in Vote	Designation
AL-2	Bright, Bobby [D]	Nay to Yea	Blue Dog Coalition
CA-47	Sanchez, Loretta [D]	Not Voting to Yea	Blue Dog Coalition
CO-3	Salazar, John [D]	Not Voting to Yea	Blue Dog Coalition
FL-5	Brown-Waite, Virginia [R]	Nay to Yea	RINO
FL-8	Grayson, Alan [D]	Yea to Not Voting	Almost grew a spine
FL-10	Young, C. W. [R]	Nay to Yea	RINO
GA-7	Linder, John [R]	Nay to Not Voting	RINO
IL-8	Bean, Melissa [D]	Nay to Yea	Chicken
MN-2	Kline, John [R]	Nay to Yea	RINO
MS-4	Taylor, Gene [D]	Nay to Yea	Blue Dog Coalition
MO-2	Akin, W. [R]	Nay to Not Voting	RINO
NJ-3	Adler, John [D]	Yea to Not Voting	Confused
NY-23	McHugh, John [R]	Not Voting to Yea	RINO
NC-9	Myrick, Sue [R]	Nay to Yea	RINO
OR-3	Blumenauer, Earl [D]	Nay to Yea	Chicken
PA-12	Murtha, John [D]	Yea to Not Voting	Confused as hell
TN-4	Davis, Lincoln [D]	Not Voting to Nay	Blue Dog Coalition
TX-24	Marchant, Kenny [R]	Yea to Nay	Woke up from his nap
WI-8	Kagen, Steve [D]	Nay to Yea	Chicken

Here’s the breakdown:

So, my friends, we’ve been bamboozled again. We had a victory, but just like during the Democratic primaries, when TPTB didn’t get their way they simply changed the vote. Just like that. And the residents in Florida should be ever so happy to learn that they were screwed by both political parties once again. Um, guys – 3 of your non-representing Representatives changed their votes after the fact; think you might want to consider a change in 2010? Like None of the Above!

Now comes the question, “What can we do about it?” There are several things:

1) This bill has not passed the Senate yet. Get on the phone/fax/email and hammer them! Let them know there’s no way you’ll let anyone forget if they vote to starve America and the world.

2) If you live in one of the districts listed above, get on the phone and scream at these bastages! Let them know that you’re paying attention and you know they changed their vote. Demand to know why?

3) Join the march on Washington, D.C. on September 12, 2009. We need to let those inside the Beltway know that America does not support their thieving stealing lying condescending flip flopping actions against our wishes.

4) Boycott Monsanto. Shelly Roche from ByteStyle TV started this seemingly impossible (but in reality simple) idea. Check out her video here for one way to beat them at their own game.

If all this talk about Monsanto determining what you can eat has gotten to you, Shelly has also put together a dynamite list of how to recognize GMO foods that’s worth checking out. To induce you to read her article, I’ll share one I didn’t know about:

Look at the stickers on fruit – there is a PLU code with either 4 or 5 numbers. If your fruit’s label has 4 numbers, it is conventionally grown. 5 numbers starting with a 9 means it was organically grown, and 5 numbers starting with an 8 means GMO.

Last, but not least, if you really want to be vigilant about avoiding GMOs, corn is an important yet difficult thing to avoid (thank you Tom Daschle). Check out the Emergency Guide to Avoiding Corn from findsafefood.com. You might be surprised at where it’s hiding.

HUGE BREAKTHROUGH in Breast Cancer Diagnosis; When Will We See It in the U.S.?? (If Ever…)

By InsightAnalytical-GRL

According to the medical industry, mammograms are a must for early detection of breast cancer.  The benefits of early detection is well worth the risks of being irradiated on a regular basis.

What if there was a much simpler and safer way to test for this disease?

Well, a few days ago on Radio Australia I heard a segment on Australia’s “Smart 100 Awards.” In fact, the number one “smart idea” was a simple procedure to help in the discovery of breast cancer.

This isn’t a new story. In fact, 10 YEARS AGO, a retired professor of physics named Dr. Veronica James published an article on the subject in Nature magazine.  As reported on March 4, 1999 by ABC (Australia):

Pubic hair may reveal early breast cancer › News in Science (ABC Science).

C. Johnson, The Lab

---

A single pubic hair may provide all the information needed for early detection of breast cancer, preliminary studies by an Australian scientist suggest.Hair from breast cancer patients has a different molecular structure to hair from healthy subjects, Dr Veronica James and colleagues report in the current issue of the journal Nature.Moreover, all hair samples from women who were healthy but carried the BRCA1 gene – which is associated with a high risk of breast cancer – showed the same structural anomaly, raising the possibility of an early diagnostic test.

SNIP

The changes in molecular structure showed up when hairs were bombarded with a beam of highly focused x-ray beams, generated in synchrotron facilities in Japan and the USA. A synchrotron is a device that accelerates protons or electrons in a magnetic field. When the accelerated protons or electrons are suddenly stopped, the energy is released as intense x-ray beams.

SNIP

Initially Dr James studied scalp hair only. When the data looked interesting she set about looking at a larger sample of hairs, but on that occasion the results were inconsistent.

“We saw all sorts of odd-bod changes. But it looked like some of the hair had had treatment. One sample was black, white and yellow.”

When she eliminated hair samples that had been permed less than three months before collection, the pattern was clear.

To avoid problems caused by hair treatment, she approached Professor John Kearsley, an oncologist at St George Hospital in Sydney, and asked if patients could supply pubic hair samples.

SNIP

If a reliable test proved possible, the cost could be as low as $20 a sample.

“You would just put a few hairs in an envelope. You wouldn’t need access to a mammography machine.”

MORE

Imagine that. No mammography machine. No pain, no radiation.  And the original testing was done on machines in Japan and here in the good old U.S. of A.

10 years later…

I wake up to hear the interview with Dr. Peter French, the Chief Scientist at Fermiscan, Ltd., who describes the whole process again. This is the NUMBER ONE innovation honored in  Australia this year.  And, there is actually a TEST now According to the Fermiscan website, the company has already completed a  “2,000 patient trial and has commenced a clinical study using the Fermiscan Test in conjunction with current screening to assess the use of the test by physicians in a clinical setting.”

Here’s the transcript of the interview:

8 June  2009

Hair Test to Detect Breast Cancer

How a strand of hair can test for breast tumours

Contact: Dr. Peter French, Chief Scientist Fermiscan Holdings Ltd Level 5, 48 Hunter Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 International Telephone: +61 2 9245 4460 Email: info@fermiscan.com.au Website: http://www.fermiscan.com.au

TRANSCRIPT:

DESLEY BLANCH : A revolutionary test that detects the first signs of breast cancer from a few strands of a woman’s hair was named as the most innovative product in Australia in the inaugural Smart 100 Awards. Here’s how it works. The Australian researchers report that hair from women with breast cancer can be distinguished from hair obtained from women without the disease — by exposing hair samples to high-powered X-rays from a synchrotron particle accelerator.

When hair is exposed to x-rays, the radiation is defracted in a distinctive pattern by the alpha-keratin that forms hair.

Fermiscan’s test is based on technology developed by Veronica James, a retired physics professor from the University of New South Wales in Sydney and from whom the company has acquired the patent rights.

Dr Peter French is chief scientist at Fermiscan Holdings. Here is part of an interview he gave me last year, where he explains X-ray defraction and how its pattern differs between normal hair and hair from women with breast cancer.

DR PETER FRENCH : X-ray diffraction is really sending X-ray particles through substances, often biological substances such as hair or crystals of proteins or DNA and, as they go through, some of those particles are deflected by the underlying structures of the substance that they hit. So in the case of hair, they’re deflected by as you said the alpha-keratin that makes up the hair fibre.

Most go straight through, but a few are deflected and after they’re deflected or they bounce off the underlying structures, they end up interfering with each other and causing a distinctive pattern of, mainly, arcs. So you see a picture of a circle in the middle with a whole lot of arcs around it and the arcs reflect the spacings of the underlying structures of the hair.

Now this has been a technique that has been used to look at hair structure for probably 50 years, so there’s nothing new in that. What was new was that the advent of the Synchrotron technology, which was really available from the late 90s enabled Dr James to show that in some cases, that women had an extra additional feature in the pattern, which wasn’t an arc it was actually a circle and this circle appeared in the hair from women who had breast cancer and she published this originally in “Nature” in 1999 and that was really how the work started.

DESLEY BLANCH : And, how early do you believe your test could detect this disease?

DR PETER FRENCH : We’re still working on that. So far though, we know that we can detect cancers that are at least 9 millimetres in size and probably smaller, and that’s certainly, usually below the level that a woman can feel the cancer with breast self-examination, for example.

DESLEY BLANCH : And where’s the hair cut from and how much hair is required for the test?

DR PETER FRENCH : We need about 20 strands or fibres of hair and it’s cut from the back of the head, usually behind the ear, which is the area of the hair which is usually less environmentally damaged. Some environmental damages which can cause us problems in the tests include dyeing and perming of the hair, and therefore we need about four weeks of regrowth post any dyes or perms so that we can get an accurate result with the test. So hair is simply cut from behind the head and we examine the part of the hair very close to the scalp.

DESLEY BLANCH : And what does breast cancer do to the hair structure?

DR PETER FRENCH : Well, this is still an area that we’re trying to understand. The mechanism would be something along the lines we propose that the breast cancer itself secretes a range of cytokines, growth factors and other proteins that can cause a change in the way that the hair follicle works and it does this by secreting these proteins and other molecules into the blood stream. The blood stream contacts the hair follicle and we believe that some of these molecules can cause a change in the way the follicle works and the way that it puts out the highly ordered normal strands of hair.

DESLEY BLANCH : And do we understand the reason for the ring pattern?

DR PETER FRENCH : Again, this is an area that we’re investigating. The ring usually means that there’s a disordering of an ordered crystalline-like pattern and so what we believe is that it’s likely that the normal highly ordered arrays of alpha-keratin filaments that are present in the hair are disrupted in some way by the presence of the cancer secreting these molecules into the blood stream.

DESLEY BLANCH : Fermiscan Holdings’ Chief Scientist Dr. Peter French describing their breast cancer test which was voted in at Number One in Australia’s Smart 100 Awards.

So the question becomes: when does this great idea make it’s way over here? And, if there ARE trials one of these days, how long with the FDA drag its feet in approving such a test? Or will this major breakthrough die overseas at the behest of our wonderful, profit-oriented “health care system”?  It will be ironic if women here are deprived of this test, considering that the initial research by Dr. James was run on machines in Japan and HERE, in the U.S.

Go visit the Fermiscan website and read the details of the trial and look at the simple charts. It seems that for women under 70, the sensitivity of the test is about 74%.  This is only 4% lower than mammography and ultrasound combined.  (Ultrasound and mammograms alone are only about 50%.  Sensitivity refers to the ability to actually CORRECTLY detect cancer.

Sounds pretty darned good to me for a test which involves snipping a few hairs…

The Past Week(s): December 14-27, Recaps and Random Thoughts (“Heart” Series; Betty Currie Returns; “Money as Debt”; FDA Caves to Pressure, Antibiotics Back IN Food Animals as of 11/30)

~~By InsightAnalytical-GRL

We’ve been busy over the last week with our “Heart” series (and there will be two pieces in the same vein over the New Year holiday) but here are a couple of items that have caught our eye recently.

***

In case you missed this: From the “you must be kidding department”:

Remember Betty Currie? Personal secretary to Bill Clinton who testified 5 times before a grand jury during the Lewinsky scandal?  With a lot of the Obama team former Clinton Administration officials, I guess this should be no surprise at this point.

Obama Team Has Forged Another Link With Clintons

Answering the phones these days for the co-chairman of President-elect Barack Obama’s transition, John D. Podesta, is none other than Betty Currie.

Emerging from retirement in southern Maryland to volunteer at Obama headquarters, Ms. Currie was the personal secretary to President Bill Clinton, who became caught up in an independent counsel investigation into his trysts with the White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Since leaving the White House, Ms. Currie, 69, has shied from publicity and kept a low profile in Hollywood, Md., where she lives with her husband, Bob, and Socks, the presidential cat, which she took with her after Mr. Clinton left office.

Ms. Currie, who works with local nonprofit organizations and serves on the Alcohol Beverage Board of St. Mary’s County, declined to discuss her work for Mr. Obama or her recent life, citing a transition office policy against volunteers giving interviews.

Compelled to testify to a grand jury five times about Mr. Clinton’s relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Currie is widely admired in Clinton circles for her loyalty and effectiveness.

Mr. Podesta, who was Mr. Clinton’s last White House chief of staff, said it was natural for him to call Ms. Currie back to service.

“Of course I asked her because in the 30 years we have worked together, I have never known anyone with more grace, dedication and public spirit than Betty,” he said. “And she has one mean Rolodex.”

Yup, that Rolodex must be something to see…along with all that grace, dedication and public spirit!  Wonder if Socks has any insights to offer about what’s going on in that transition team?

***

So, with the huge spending being planned by Team Obama, my mother is talking about the Depression a lot more.  Then there’s the concern over to whether to buy gold and silver or to get a Swiss bank account (Swiss francs reputedly offer a  stable hedge against the loss of the dollar’s value).

A Canadian visitor named Manuela suggested this animated video which explains what money is and how it is created in response to our discussion of  The History Channel’s recent program on “The Crash” (which was not the greatest).  (See “The Past Week: December 7-13” below.) It’s the sort of thing that anyone who doesn’t have a clue about the current financial crisis should see…

The film is by Paul Grignon and is called “Money as Debt” and you can see it here.

***

If you eat animal products, you might want to know this. Two days before Thanksgiving, the FDA REVERSED the ban on the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals, including chickens, cattle, and pigs, effective November 30th.  As reported by the the non-profit American Association for Health Freedom:

FDA Reverses Its Order on Antibiotics in Animals

…In December 2007, a coalition of consumer, environmental, science, and humane groups known as Keep Antibiotics Working wrote to the FDA commissioner, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, urging further FDA action. Their letter presented evidence that the widespread use of antibiotics in livestock contributed to the MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus) epidemic in Europe, and showed that the effectiveness of antibiotics against deadly bacteria was questionable at best. They cited data that a new strain of MRSA bacteria in pigs was linked to 20% of all human MRSA infections in the Netherlands and Canada, though there are insufficient studies to make that link in the U.S., where MRSA cases have recently surged. The coalition also estimated that 70% of all antibiotics used in the U.S. are used as feed additives in chicken, pigs, and cattle.

This past summer the FDA instituted an order banning the off-label use of drugs in food-producing animals, while noting that the same family of drugs was important to treat disease in humans. This fall, the FDA echoed again the same sentiment, taking note of the increasing evidence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in cattle. But the FDA’s action met with harsh industry criticism. Pfizer argued that the drugs were essential for preventing disease in animals. Other groups, including the Animal Population Health Institute, the KS Health Department, the National Turkey Federation, and the American Veterinary Medical Association, also criticized the FDA’s ban, which was to go into effect on November 30.

So despite the mounting concern over antibiotic resistance—which is known to endanger human life—on November 25 the FDA revoked their earlier order, to the profound dismay of the Keep Antibiotics Working coalition and researchers like Dr. Stuart Levy at Tufts University, who leads the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics. Dr. Levy has collected a considerable body of evidence to educate his colleagues and consumers about the dangers of the overuse and abuse of antibiotics both in humans and in animal use.

The AAHF is working with other groups to see reform of the FDA and has a petition up at ReformFDA.org.

Now, with Tom Daschle heading Health and Human Services, which encompasses the FDA, should we expect a reversal of this decision? From Daschle (and wife) who have had some ties through their lobbying activities that might point to other interests? See here for details.

***

THE PAST WEEK

*By Grail Guardian

**Contribution by Chicago Correspondent Leslie

***By American Lassie

After “Aunt Benazir’s” Assassination, Fatima Bhutto Still Fighting to Reveal the Truth

6. The Heart of the Season: Celebrating the Season with Light…New Mexico Luminarias

*5. The Heart of the Season: Hats for Grail Mama and Friends Beyond Family

4. The Heart of the Season: A Dog’s Purpose and Justice for Karley and All Who Deserve It

3. The Heart of the Season: Weeping for the “Unnatural History” of Chimpanzees (Updated 2X)

2. The Heart of the Season: Birds of the Solstice and Signs (A Double Post by kenosha Marge and InsightAnalytical-GRL)

Katie in the Christmas Tree by kenosha Marge

Winter Solstice, 1992: The Final Flight of a Soul by InsightAnalytical-GRL

1. The Heart of the Season: Wise Words from a Young Old Soul

Taking Our Power, Taking Our Lives: Women Under Threat (Updated 1X)

**Chicago Style Update…

Of Robots and Women and Our Current Life in the Village of Stepford (Antidote on the Way?)(A Double Post by kenosha Marge and InsightAnalytical-GRL)

Women, You’re About To Be Replaced By…a ROBOT! by InsightAnalytical-GRL

Women Will Never Be Equal by kenosha Marge

***On Reflection: These Are The Times That Try Men’s (and Women’s) Souls

W.A.M. Asks — Who Needs Christmas When You Can Worship “THE ONE”?

The Past Week: December 7-13, Recaps and Random Thoughts (Blago in the Can and ON the Can; Obama License Plates in IL?; Reality-Based Black Commentary; Canada & the Auto Bailout; Live Blog of The History Channel on “Crash: The Next Great Depression?”– No Surprise, A Waste of Time; Ignored Science) (Updated 1X)

Why, Oh Why? Melamine in Infant Formula?

(Editor’s Note: With “healthcare reform” beginning to gather steam (see previous posts at IA on the subject), an equally important area of concern involving health and safety issues involves the FDA and who may be appointed to head this department.  See here for a rundown from the  Washington Post on the problems the agency faces and a list of possible candidates being considered by the Obama Transition Team.–InsightAnalytical-GRL)

~~By kenosha Marge

I’ve been following the story about melamine in infant formula. It just seemed so indicative of our dysfunctional government that a toxic substance would be in a substance that we should insist be as close to100% safe as could possibly be achieved. Isn’t the FDA there to protect our children and us? Shouldn’t they be leading the charge to ensure that standard? They would if we had a government agency that protects and serves the people of this country and not the corporations.

I learned that melamine is sometimes illegally added to food products in order to increase the apparent protein content. I learned that there are tests that estimate protein levels by measuring the nitrogen content, so they can be misled by adding nitrogen-rich compounds such as melamine. Oh yummy! High protein and sticks to your ribs too.

Ingestion of melamine may lead to reproductive damage or bladder or kidney stones, which can lead to bladder cancer. Is that a chance most parents would want to take with their babies? Probably not but then they would have to be aware of the problem before they could get all irate about it wouldn’t they? And then they would have to disbelieve the FDA which now says, “nothing to worry about here”.

A short time ago federal food regulators said they were unable to set a safety threshold for the industrial chemical melamine in baby formula. Now, however, they found a way to settle on a standard that allows for higher levels than those found in U.S.-made batches of the product. It’s perfectly logical if you believe that what was bad last week isn’t bad this week. It’s perfectly logical if you believe the FDA knows what the hell it’s talking about or if you think they give a crap about the safety of the citizens, and their babies, of this or any other country.

Food and Drug Administration officials set a threshold of 1 part per million of melamine in formula, provided a related chemical is not present. They insisted the formulas are safe. Because saying that the formula was not safe would be bad for business don’t you know, and that’s the FDA’s real concern.

The Associated Press reported that FDA tests found traces of melamine in the infant formula of one major U.S. manufacturer and cyanuric acid, a chemical relative, in the formula of a second major maker. The contaminated samples, which both measured at levels below the new standard, were analyzed several weeks ago.

What exactly is melamine? Before I get nuts about it perhaps I should know a little more about what I’m discussing. After all, it’s only infant formula and how important can that be?

Let’s see: Melamine is an organic base and a trimer of cyanamide, with a 1,3,5-triazine skeleton. Like cyanamide, it contains 66% nitrogen by mass and, if mixed with resins, has fire retardant properties due to its release of nitrogen gas when burned or charred, and has several other industrial uses.

I am not a chemist. I do not understand a whole lot about about chemicals. All I know is that there are a whole lot of them I do not want to find in food. Particularly in infant formula. Who knew we needed a fire retardant in infant formula? Has there been a rash of infant formula fires I didn’t hear about?

Let’s try the wisegeek. Hmm, wisegeek says: “Melamine is an organic compound that is often combined with formaldehyde to produce melamine resin, a synthetic polymer which is fire resistant and heat tolerant. Melamine resin is a very versatile material with a highly stable structure. Uses for melamine include whiteboards, floor tiles, kitchenware, fire retardant fabrics, and commercial filters. Melamine can be easily molded while warm, but will set into a fixed form. This property makes it ideally suited to certain industrial applications.”

I don’t know about anyone else but the idea of something that is used to make floor tiles being inside infant formula disturbs me. I used to eat off of melamine dishes. The idea of ingesting them never occurred to me. Nor anyone else I know.

No need to worry because our every vigilant FDA is once again lagging to the rescue and sorting out all the brouhaha.

The Food and Drug Administration was formed in 1901 as the Bureau of Chemistry. Then in 1927 it became the Food Drug and Insecticide Administration. The word insecticide somehow got dropped along the way and we have our current champions, the FDA. Their headquarters are at 5600 Fishers Lane in Rockville, Maryland. They have about 9300 employees and an annual budget of $2.3 billion. The commissioner and politician in charge is Andrew von Eschenbach. Their parent agency is the Department of Health and Human Services.

These people have a budget of $2.3 billion and they can’t guarantee the safety of infant formula? Oh wait, they just tell us it is safe to have one of the ingredients for floor tile and kitchenware in infant formula. This is the agency that is supposed to protect the foods we eat and the medications we take. Perhaps I am being alarmist when I just don’t think having an ingredient for floor tile in baby formula is a good thing. Maybe I’m just a tad picky about what chemicals my great-granddaughter might be ingesting when I give her a bottle.

A more naïve me used to believe that the FDA would protect the citizenry and ensure that their foods and drugs were safe. It has now my belief that every agency in Washington D.C. is all about protecting corporations from their many and egregious assaults on the public health. When does corruption cross over into depraved indifference as they say on Law and Order?

Many of us are told that we are slobs and it’s our fault that we aren’t healthy cause we don’t eat right and don’t exercise and oh, by the way, it’s quite all right to feed your baby floor tile. Non-fat and no sugar! Hooray. And you won’t find that at a Fast Food drive through. Or maybe it’s in the food there too. Oh my.

What to do, what to do? Go graze in a nearby field? Chomp on the bark of a tree? Or are they saturated with pesticides that contain chemicals that will make rot us from the inside out?

The one thing you can safely count on is that your government will do nothing to protect you and everything it can to protect the corporations that are poisoning you and your children. Because the corporations got the money and the power and we/you/me don’t. That is ultimately why the FDA is telling us that certain levels of melamine are not harmful in infant formula. The question is, how many of us believe them?