Tell the FDA to BACK OFF and Get Real -- FDA Attacks Cheerios!

It appears the FDA is rattling their sabre once again when it comes to regulating the health claims of food products. This is nothing new for them, but this latest development is a red flag for all of us -- consumers, organic food growers, and companies that produce and market nutritional supplements. An article posted at gives a very interesting perspective on this issue from the legal standpoint, and it also offers some clues as to what FDA may really be up to behind the scenes.

The FDA sent a letter in May of this year to General Mills, manufacturer of Cheerios breakfast cereal, informing them that they have mislabeled the Cheerios product and are in violation of FDA regulations. Specifically, the FDA is charging General Mills with making erroneous claims on a website that is printed on the cereal box. The contested claims include statements that eating Cheerios can lower cholesterol, with clinical studies to prove it.

The FDA is upset for a couple of main reasons. First, they are accusing General Mills of leading consumers to believe that Cheerios is -- are you ready for this -- a drug, specifically an "unapproved" drug. What this says between the lines is that even a natural substance, such as whole-grains, is considered a drug by FDA standards and subject to regulation if any health benefits are linked to it.

The FDA has also stated that two claims in particular are at issue:

• "Heart-healthy diets rich in whole-grain foods can reduce the risk of heart disease."
• "Including whole grains as part of a healthy diet may reduce the risk of certain types of cancers. Regular consumption of whole-grains as part of a low-fat diet reduces the risk for some cancers, especially cancers of the stomach and colon."

The FDA is claiming that the above statements are too confusing for the American public to comprehend, that people cannot properly understand the context of the terms "healthy diet" or "low-fat diet."

From a legal standpoint, the attorneys who wrote this article are saying that these statements appeared to be in line with FDA regulatory standards, thus making the ruling ambiguous and open to a challenge.

From a practical perspective, these statements are simply facts about the known health benefits of eating whole grains, without any reference or claim to Cheerios or any other product. Not to mention that the FDA vastly underestimates the capability of people to understand and apply these facts to their own lives by their own free will. The really ludicrous thing is that if the FDA was truly concerned about our health they would be issuing statements such as those above themselves! How many meds have they approved and then had to recall because the drugs killed or maimed people?

The thing that we really need to pay attention to, according to these lawyers whose specialties include FDA law and regulations, is that by going after a prominent company such as General Mills, the FDA is sending an indicator of their intentions to everyone in the food and dietary supplement industries. If they can call Cheerios a drug, they are in essence calling whole grains, a natural food provided to us by our Creator, a drug also. When the FDA classifies any substance as a drug, it opens the door to just about any level of regulation they can get away with. In other words, it puts them in the driver's seat at all times.

Don't get me wrong. I am not supporting the consumption of Cheerios. This cereal is not organic, not truly whole grain, and likely made with GMO grains, something the FDA says companies are not required to divulge. The point is that the FDA is again showing that their ultimate plan is to regulate and restrict anything that may compete with pharmaceutical drugs. This could include any food or nutritional supplement -- even to the point of making it illegal to grow your own produce at home for your own consumption.

All it takes is a bit of research to prove that the FDA is corrupted by their conflicting relationships with Big Pharma, corporate farming, and other interests that influence their policies and provide financial incentives to them as well. The FDA poses as a protective agency concerned with the welfare of the public. They are setting a dangerous precedent that gives the message that only drugs can heal. If they can, or should I say if we let them, the ultimate end will be the outlaw of natural foods and supplements. The time to speak out against this travesty is now.

FDA Approves Known Dangerous Drug for Use on Children

Federal regulators have pulled a lot of bizarre stunts over the years, but this one is a real head-scratcher. Just over a month ago, the manufacturer of an antidepressant drug called Lexapro (Forest Laboratories Inc.) was brought up on charges for illegally bribing pediatricians to prescribe it for children, for which it was not approved. So what does the FDA do? They announced last week that they had given the green light for Lexapro to be used on patients from 12-17 years of age. To make things even weirder, this ruling contradicts Forest Labs' own statement that Lexapro had not proven itself in studies to effectively maintain control of depression symptoms in adolescents.

The timing of this move makes absolutely no sense, and it screams of corruption and conflict of interest, something the FDA is no stranger to. The really odd thing about this all is that the FDA's ruling actually overrides Forest Labs' findings that Lexapro is ineffective for treating depressed children, and that it is highly dangerous for them as well -- even more so than for adults. If you visit Forest Labs' Lexapro website where their branding mantra is "POWER TO ENJOY LIFE", they have clearly posted an ominous warning right under their Big Announcement:

LEXAPRO is now approved for
acute and maintenance treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in adolescents aged 12-17.

"Antidepressants increased the risk, compared to placebo, of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults in short-term studies of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders."

For the FDA to make the decision to legalize the prescriptions of Lexapro to children under any circumstances is highly questionable, but when it was done in the shadow of the indictment of Forest Labs, it becomes scandalous.

What Kind of Corruption is Going on Here?

The accusations against Forest Labs that were announced last month were the culmination of a five-year investigation by the Federal Department of Justice. Prosecutors found that executives in the company had told their sales and marketing people to push pediatricians to prescribe Lexapro and its chemically similar sister drug Celexa to children and adolescents, even though it had not received FDA clearance to do so. However, this is a common occurrence in the world of Big Pharma, and the practice is called "off-label" prescription and is not technically illegal. However, it is illegal for drug companies to urge physicians to do so.

Yes, it sounds unbelievable, but if a physician wants to use a drug for something other than what it is designed to do because he feels it may "help" his patient, he is legally free to do that in some cases. Where Forest Labs got themselves in trouble, is that they were caught pushing off-label use through illegal "marketing" methods such as offering bribes to doctors in the form of cash, tickets to sporting events and Broadway shows, fishing trips, spa visits, and other expensive perks. Employees of Forest Labs were also instructed to ignore studies that showed less than favorable results of these drugs on kids, and to highlight studies that gave the results the company was looking for. This cat and mouse game is also a very common practice in the FDA/Big Pharma network. Lexapro is Forest's biggest product ($2 billion in annual sales and number 15 on the list of all US drug sales), but apparently they weren't satisfied with that.

Just How Dangerous is Lexapro Anyway?

Many doctors, and thus their patients, have been told by drug company reps that Lexapro is "non-habit forming." However, the truth of the matter is that this toxic drug has over 250 known side-effects, either during use or when stopping use of the drug (withdrawal symptoms). Some of the major side effects include:

• Gastrointestinal: (cramps, diarrhea, constipation difficulty swallowing, vomiting)
• Cardiovascular: (irregular heartbeat, chest pain abnormal EKG, varicose veins)
• Muscle pain
• Aches and pains
• Joint pain
• Loss of balance
  Tremors
• Involuntary muscle contractions
• Psychiatric: (crying fits, auditory hallucinations, abnormal dreaming, depression -- the very thing it is supposed to treat!)
• Asthma and other allergies
• Acne and other skin disorders
• Shortness of breath

Experts also urge caution when withdrawing from Lexapro. Potential problems include many of those listed above, plus:

• Cardiac arrest
• Gastric ulcers
• Irritable Bowel Syndrome
• Increased psychiatric symptoms
• Kidney disease
• Vision problems: (macular degeneration, detached retina)

Google "Lexapro withdrawals" or "weaning off of Lexapro" and you will find literally hundreds of sites and forums of individuals trying to wean off of Lexapro. Drugs.com contains a discussion forum with 314 pages of posts devoted only to people trying who are trying to stop Lexapro. Evidently some have been trying to get off this "non-addictive anti-depressant" from 3 to 8 months, and yet are still having tremendous difficulties in accomplishing their goal.

Unfortunately, as you can see, you can't always trust what your doctor tells you and the FDA continues to show us over and over just how much they really do NOT care about our health and well-being. Be sober and wise about any drug that is prescribed for you or your loved ones. Research and do your "due diligence." For me, I will choose NOT to get my POWER TO ENJOY LIFE from a pharmaceutical drug.

FDA Approves More Drugs in Meat

The FDA has changed their mind about a ruling passed last summer and is again allowing animals that are raised for food to be laced with a type of antibiotics that is one of the favorites of the food industry. These drugs keep the producer's expenses down by controlling disease, cheapening the cost of feed, and causing the animals to grow to slaughtering size faster.

Sounds like a good plan except for a few glitches. The reason this practice was stopped is because of the danger of antibiotic resistant diseases getting stronger, both in the animals and in the human population. Obviously, this situation has not changed, and is likely worse than it was last year. As the article states, the FDA needed time to review comments about their action, and apparently the lobbyists in the food industry spoke the loudest about this issue. Once again this government agency that is supposed to be looking out for our health has sided with their big business comrades to protect the almighty dollar. The only bright side to this all is that this is another great reason to stop eating meat! Such a choice would help both your health and your budget.


FDA Reverses Decision to Ban Certain Antibiotic Use in Food Animals
By Christian Dobbins

January 21 - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said it would allow the use of cephalosporins in food-producing animals, reversing a decision made this summer to ban the practice. The agency's initial decision to ban this class of antibiotics stemmed from fears that excessive use in animals such as cows, swine, and chickens could promote drug resistance in strains of bacteria that also infect people.

Cephalosporins are generally used in livestock feed to promote growth and to treat infectious diseases. Citing the importance of cephalosporin drugs for treating disease in humans, on July 3 the FDA announced a planned crackdown on "off-label" use in animals -- the practice of using the drug for a purpose outside the scope of its approved label. However, agriculture groups and makers of veterinary drugs claim that antibiotics are needed, while others have claimed that the data on the human impact used to support the ban were flawed. On Nov. 25 the FDA revoked its decision, saying it had received a number of comments and needed more time to review them; the agency added that it could still impose restrictions later.

As far back as the 1980s, the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine warned of the dangers of overuse of antibiotics in food animals. In the 1998 report The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks, they noted that antibiotic resistance in humans and animals had risen sharply during the last several decades. The report recommended that the federal government form an oversight panel to ensure the appropriate use of antibiotics, and establish a national database to monitor microbe-related illnesses and trends in antibiotic resistance that may result from drug use in food animals.

In 2003 the Institute of Medicine report Microbial Threats to Health: Emergence, Detection, and Response urged FDA to ban the use of certain anti-microbials in animals if those same drugs could be used to treat illness in humans. The recommendation's goal is to reduce the chances of developing drug-resistant organisms in animals that could eventually cause hard-to-treat diseases in people.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/headlines/20090121.html

Babies at Risk from Melamine

Breastfeeding is clearly the safest, most nutritious way to feed your babies and provide the best building blocks for them to thrive. However, if you do choose to use formula, don't fall for the FDA's weak position on the risks of melamine in formula. The following article does an excellent job of detailing those risks and explaining why FDA cannot be trusted.

Melamine is toxic to all humans, but especially to infants whose bodily systems are not yet fully developed. As the article points out, consuming farm-raised fish, especially from China, is also particularly risky due to the toxins, such as melamine and others, in their feed. Once again, FDA honchos have made a decision to not ruffle the feathers of the food industry, and in the process have put the welfare of us and our children in peril.


FDA Claims Toxin in Infant Formula is No Big Deal
According to the FDA, levels of melamine found in a sample of U.S. made infant formula do not pose a safety risk.

The agency detected trace amounts of the toxic chemical in a sample of Nestle Nutrition's Good Start Supreme Infant Formula with Iron. Melamine was found in concentrations of 137 and 140 parts per billion. The FDA said that concentrations less than 1,000 parts per billion do not raise safety concerns, although earlier they had argued that no level of melamine was safe.

Agency testing also found cyanuric acid, a chemical relative of melamine, in a single sample of Mead Johnson's Enfamil Lipil with Iron.

Sources:
American Association for Health Freedom
MedPage Today December 1, 2008
Los Angeles Times December 24, 2008

Dr. Mercola's Comments:
This is another vivid example of how far off track the FDA has traveled from its roots as protector of public safety.

The article cites an especially flagrant violation of public trust in which the FDA outdid itself by

1) completely reversing its position on the safety of melamine in food products, and

2) risking the health of infants in the process.

The truth is that the FDA as it is currently structured is no longer able to protect you and your family. The FDA doesn't view you as its client. Drug companies have become the FDA's biggest client, and their interests come well ahead of yours.

Sadly, the risk of melamine is no longer contained to just milk products. In a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, fish from China have also been found to be contaminated with this industrial chemical. China is the world's largest producer of farm-raised seafood, exporting billions of dollars worth of shrimp, catfish, tilapia, salmon and other fish. The U.S. imported about $2 billion of seafood products from China in 2007, almost double the volume of four years earlier, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

According to industry experts and businesspeople in China, melamine has been routinely added to fish feed, to boost protein readings. What's worse, new research indicates that the flesh in fish that have been fed melamine still contains residues of the substance.

How Dangerous Is Melamine for Your Baby?

Melamine is a compound composed of nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen. It began appearing in household goods and laminates in the late 1930's. When combined with formaldehyde and exposed to extreme heat, melamine forms into a moldable material that is virtually unbreakable once cooled.

Inside a human body, melamine combined with cyanuric acid forms into insoluble crystals in renal tubules, kidneys, the ureter, urethra or urinary bladder.

Babies who've been fed infant formula containing high concentrations of melamine have shown the following symptoms:

Unexplained fever arising from urinary tract infections
Unexplained crying in infants, especially when urinating, possible vomiting
Small amounts of blood in the urine
Acute obstructive renal failure
Pain on urinating, and passage of stones while urinating
High blood pressure
Edema
Pain over the kidneys

Keeping Your Baby Safe

Breastfeeding is without question the best way to keep your child safe from contaminants in commercial formula.

Beyond the concern for safety, there are so many other benefits to breastfeeding -- for both you and your baby -- it should be the option of choice whenever possible.

A very short list of some of the positive effects of breastfeeding your baby includes:

Reduced risk of heart disease for baby later in life
Higher intelligence
Reduced risk of obesity in teen years
Reduced womb-to-world trauma for newborns
Mothers who breastfeed return to pre-pregnancy weight faster

Is There a Safe Alternative to Breastfeeding?

Absolutely nothing beats breast milk as a nutritional and health resource for your baby. I can't stress it enough. There are at least 400 nutrients in breast milk that are not found in formula.

However, if for some reason you're not able to breastfeed, your next best option is to make a healthy infant formula using raw milk. You can find additional homemade formula recipes here.

Whatever you do, avoid infant soy formula. Unfermented soy is hazardous to your health, and soy formula is one of the worst foods you can feed to your baby.

http://articles.mercola.com:80/sites/articles/archive/2009/01/01/fda-claims-toxin-in-infant-formula-is-no-big-deal.aspx

FDA Gives Green Light to Cloned Food Despite Public Concern

The FDA has given their blessing to the sale and consumption of cloned food products in the United States. Those in the cloning and food processing industry have been on the edge of their seats regarding this ruling, as it is projected to open up a multi-billion dollar market. Despite all the positive public relations regarding the safety of cloned foods, polls show that more than 60% of Americans are not thrilled with the idea and fortunately are not buying into the media blast. Hopefully, Americans will not buy the goods either.

The bottom line for consumers is that the long term effects of eating cloned foods is simply not known, but any honest scientist will tell you that tinkering with nature in this way can potentially lead to dangerous and unpredictable consequences. It is a verified fact that cloned animals have more health problems than those that are naturally bred. So in essence, the FDA is putting their stamp of approval on the consumption of foods made from diseased livestock. This leaves them an open door to justify further use of toxic chemicals, drugs and additives so that the health and safety of cloned foods can be controlled.

Considering their track record of half-truths and pandering to special interest groups, you can be sure that this was not a scientifically objective decision on the FDAs part, especially when you factor in the amount of money at stake. As I always say, just follow the money. As we move closer to a nation and a world where health freedoms are a thing of the past, the control of resources such as the food supply and other natural substances will become increasingly common.

We are to the point where backyard gardens, container gardening, farmers markets and a relationship with a good dairy farmer are becoming essential if you value unadulterated food. Even though most of the country is in the midst of winter, spring is right around the corner. Do your gardening research now and begin to make plans for your organic garden - whether you are a seasoned gardener or a timid beginner - you will be doing one of the best things for your familys health and well-being.And one more thing. Every child should have the opportunity to experience Gardening 101! Be sure to include your children in your gardening adventures and your trips to the farmers markets and dairies. We must realize the importance of teaching our children how to eat and live healthy. Most children have no idea about how vegetables actually make it to the grocery store because they have never seen a garden! Knowing the ins and outs of gardening is a huge step in giving them valuable lessons concerning living naturally and toxin-free in a VERY toxic world.

FDA says clones are safe for food

A long-awaited final report from the Food and Drug Administration concludes that foods from healthy cloned animals and their offspring are as safe as those from ordinary animals, effectively removing the last U.S. regulatory barrier to the marketing of meat and milk from cloned cattle, pigs and goats.

The 968-page "final risk assessment," not yet released but obtained by The Washington Post, finds no evidence to support opponents' concerns that food from clones may harbor hidden risks.

But, recognizing that a majority of consumers are wary of food from clones -- and that cloning could undermine the wholesome image of American milk and meat -- the agency report includes hundreds of pages of raw data so that others can see how it came to its conclusions.

The report also acknowledges that human health concerns are not the only issues raised by the emergence of cloned farm animals.

"Moral, religious and ethical concerns . . . have been raised," the agency notes in a document accompanying the report. But the risk assessment is "strictly a science-based evaluation," it reports, because the agency is not authorized by law to consider those issues.

In practice, it will be years before foods from clones make their way to store shelves in appreciable quantities, in part because the clones themselves are too valuable to slaughter or milk. Instead, the pricey animals -- replicas of some of the finest farm animals ever born -- will be used primarily as breeding stock to create what proponents say will be a new generation of superior farm animals.

When food from those animals hits the market, the public may yet have its say. FDA officials have said they do not expect to require food from clones to be labeled as such, but they may allow foods from ordinary animals to be labeled as not from clones.

Opponents express dismay
Opponents of the approval, including some concerned about the welfare of the clones themselves, expressed dismay upon learning about the FDA's intentions.

Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, a Washington advocacy group that petitioned FDA to restrict the sale of food from clones, said his group is considering legal action.

"One of the amazing things about this," Mendelson said, "is that at a time when we have a readily acknowledged crisis in our food safety system, the FDA is spending its resources and energy and political capital on releasing a safety assessment for something that no one but a handful of companies wants."

Others countered that public opinion and politics should play no bigger role in the decision on clones than it should in the approval of a drug or a contraceptive.

"In fact, cloned animals have been studied much more than naturally produced animals," said Cindy Tian, who has analyzed milk and meat from clones at the University of Connecticut. "We have more data on them than for any other animal that we eat."

Release of the analysis was slowed for years by several forces, including the dairy industry, concerned about the potential impact on exports of U.S. whey solids, foreign sales of which are growing for use as a protein supplement.

In the past month, as an announcement neared, members of Congress, led by Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), sought to delay approval through legislation.

Trade-related agencies including the Foreign Agricultural Service and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which for years have struggled to get countries to accept U.S. gene-altered crops, also raised red flags.

A final blitz of meetings with FDA officials last week brought grudging acquiescence, insiders said. And it is possible, sources said, that even after the risk analysis is released, there will be calls for farmers to voluntarily refrain from selling products from clones until the trade issues can be resolved.

Challenges to assessing risk
To create its final risk assessment, the FDA gathered data on nearly all of the more than 600 U.S. farm-animal clones produced and hundreds of their offspring, as well as many from overseas. But it faced challenges in the process.

Those animals were made by scientists scattered among various universities and companies using different methods that in many cases were difficult to compare.

Moreover, many of those animals were not just clones but also had genes added to them for projects unrelated to food production.

In those cases, it was difficult for FDA reviewers to decide whether any problems were caused by those animals being clones or by their particular genetic alterations. (The FDA has said it will not approve gene-altered animals as food without additional tests for safety.)

Finally, there was the overarching problem of deciding which measures would best predict whether the food was safe. Most puzzling was whether to take into account the subtle alterations in gene activity, called epigenetic changes, that are common in clones as a result of having just one parent.

In the end, facing the reality that epigenetics have never been a factor in assessing the wholesomeness of food, agency scientists decided to use the same simple but effective standard used by farmers since the dawn of agriculture: If a farm animal appears in all respects to be healthy, then presume that food from that animal is safe to eat.

Scientists inside and outside the agency studied thousands of pages of veterinary reports describing weight, size, organ function, blood characteristics and other measures of clones and offspring. For cattle -- the animals for which the most data exist -- full health assessments were conducted for each of five different stages of the animals' life: fetal, newborn, juvenile, sexually mature, and old.

Newborn cattle often unhealthy
They concluded that newborn cattle are often unhealthy, probably because of epigenetic changes. They are usually extremely overweight and have respiratory, gastrointestinal and immune system problems. (Cloned pigs and goats are mostly healthy from the start.)

But those problems typically disappear within the first weeks or months of life as the animals somehow compensate. And since sick clones would not pass muster with food inspectors any more than sick conventional animals would, they pose no concern, the report says.

Studies of cloned farm animal behavior, including mating behavior, also showed them to be the same as ordinary animals. (One exception: On one farm, clones showed a peculiar preference not for the surrogate mother that gave birth to them but to the animal from which they were cloned.)

Scientists also looked at nutrient levels in meat and milk from a few dozen cattle and pig clones and hundreds of their progeny, and compared them with values from conventional animals. They measured vitamins A, C, B1, B2, B6 and B12 as well as niacin, pantothenic acid, calcium, iron, phosphorous, zinc, 12 kinds of fatty acids, cholesterol, fat, protein, amino acids and carbohydrates including lactose.

For almost every measure, the values were virtually the same. The few that differed were still within the range considered normal.

Separately, the agency looked at studies in which milk and meat from clones were fed to animals for up to 3 1/2 months. There was no evidence of health effects, allergic reactions or behavioral changes.

In the end, the agency concluded that it did not have enough information to rule on the safety of food from cloned sheep. It also decided that edible products from newborn cattle clones, which often are metabolically unstable, "may pose some very limited human food consumption risk."

But it found no safety hazards for meat from healthy cattle clones more than a few weeks old, milk from cloned cows, or meat from cloned pigs or goats of any age.

"Food from cattle, swine, and goat clones is as safe to eat as that from their more conventionally-bred counterparts," the FDA risk assessment concludes.

Looking ahead, the report says FDA is collaborating with veterinary and scientific organizations, notably the International Embryo Transfer Society, to create a database on the health of new clones, which will help the agency track the field as the industry grows.

Working with the FDA, the International Embryo Transfer Society is also creating the first manual of animal care standards for clones, to be made available to farmers and the public later this year.

Copyright 2008 The Washington Post Company

http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=22663416

FDA's Prescription for Diaster

As the implementation of CODEX draws closer for America, we are witnessing events that are supressing our basic freedom of speech. If Americans don't wake up, we are going to find ourselves without supplements and a food and water supply that are so adulterated that it does nothing for the body but keep it sick. We have allowed the adulteration of our water, food, air and even emotions through the junk that comes across media, magazines and newspapers. It's time for Americans to stand up and say "Enough!" We need a Boston Tea Party in the name of Health and Wellness. Gary Null puts it all together, very nicely, in the video below. Be sure to watch the entire video and take notes!


Prescription for Disaster is an in-depth investigation into the symbiotic relationships between the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, including all lobbyists, lawmakers, medical schools, and researchers, and the impact this has on consumers and their health care. During this thorough investigation, we take a close look at patented drugs, why they are so readily prescribed by doctors, the role insurance companies and HMO's play in promoting compliance, and the problem of rising health care costs. We examine the marketing and public relations efforts on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies, including sales reps, medical journals and conferences. Further, we look at alternatives to traditional pharmacology and drug therapy, such as vitamins and nutritional supplements, and why they are often perceived as a competitive threat to the drug manufacturers. Alternative therapies also include diet, exercise and a healthy lifestyle.

Prescription for Disaster takes you on a journey through the tangled web of big business, the way disease is treated today, and the consequences we suffer as a society.

Click below to watch:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2502546838698762400

FDA Proposes Calling Irradiated Foods 'Pasteurized'

Frontier Natural Products Coop newsletter
April 6 2007

The Food and Drug Administration Tuesday suggested allowing the use of the term "pasteurized" to describe irradiated foods as part of its proposed easing of the rules on labeling of irradiated foods.

The proposed new rules would require irradiated food to be labeled only when the radiation treatment caused a material change to the product, such as changes to the taste, texture, smell or shelf life. In order to use the term "pasteurized" for irradiated products, companies would be required to show the FDA that the radiation kills germs as effectively as conventional pasteurization. Companies would also be able to petition the agency to use additional alternate terms other than "irradiated."

Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, said, "This move by the FDA would deny consumers clear information about whether they are buying food that has been exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation." The FDA seemed to acknowledge that allowing alternative ways of describing irradiation would confuse consumers in their proposal: "Research indicates that many consumers regard substitute terms for irradiation to be misleading," but were not available for further comment.

The FDA posted the proposed rule changes on its Web site and will accept public comments on the proposal for 90 days. To view and comment on the proposal, go to the Regulations.gov search engine, enter "FDA-2007-0189-0001" in the Keyword or ID field (the other fields can be left as they are) and click Submit. In the two right-hand columns of the search results, you can click on icons to download a pdf of the document, view it online and make comments.

Editors note: Finding the pages for readers to view and comment on this proposal provided some interesting insights. I first went to fda.gov, where I couldn't find any mention of the proposed changes or how to comment on them. The search term "irradiation" returned 5440 results, the top three ("sorted by relevance") being 1)"Food Irradiation--A Safe Measure" (subheaded "Food Irradiation is a safe measure."), 2) "FDA/CFSAN Is food irradiation safe?" an excerpt from "Food Irradiation--A Safe Measure") and 3) "Irradiation: A Safe Measure For Safer Food." The A-Z index has one item under irradiation: "Food Irradiation--A Safe Measure." Through a series of less-than-intuitive links, I eventually found my way to www.regulations.gov and was able to track down the proposal and page for commenting.

###

Original story can be found here.