Posted on 08/11/2019 8:47:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
A couple of years ago, the US Food and Drug Administration sent a “Warning Letter” to Nashoba Brook Bakery, advising its owners that listing “love” as an ingredient in their granola violated the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The product was “misbranded,” because “love” is “not a common or usual name of an ingredient,” FDA said. Such deceptive labeling practices could mislead consumers and are not allowed.
FDA has also warned and cited companies that make “unfounded,” “unproven” or “unsubstantiated” claims about their products. FDA is committed to “protecting the public health by taking action as needed against companies that deceive consumers.” It will not let companies say cannabidiol “has been linked to the effective treatment of Alzheimer’s disease,” if they don’t have solid evidence to back the claim up.
Claiming your product is better or more effective than a competitor’s is also “misleading” if there is “no evidence” to support the claim. Labels and advertising must be “truthful and not misleading” – or else.
FDA policies are equally clear in the arena of organic, conventional and biotech (genetically modified or engineered, GMO or GE) seeds, ingredients, products, manufacturing, distribution, and sales. The agency’s published guidance states that “false or misleading” food labeling includes “the statement ‘none of the ingredients in this food is genetically engineered’ on a food where some of the ingredients are incapable of being produced through genetic engineering (e.g., salt).”
“GMO-free” claims, FDA says, can also be “false and misleading” if they imply that a certain food “is safer, more nutritious, or otherwise has different attributes than other comparable foods because the food was not genetically engineered.” Claiming a food is healthier or better tasting because it’s organic, would fall under this guideline of “different attributes ... because it was not genetically engineered.”
However, in stark contrast to the way it polices other food, drug, cosmetic and medical device industries, the FDA has let the $52.5-billion organic food industry and pro-organic, anti-conventional farming, anti-biotechnology interests routinely and flagrantly ignore agency rules. Their ads, websites, and campaigns deliberately mislead consumers and denigrate competitors with multiple falsehoods.
1. No dangerous chemicals. The Whole Foods website falsely claims: “All organic foods begin as crops grown without toxic persistent pesticides which can end up in soil and water, as well as in your food.”
Copper sulfate has multiple pesticide and fungicide applications in organic farming; it persists in soil, is the most common chemical residue in organic foods, and can damage human brains, livers, kidneys, and stomach linings. The EU found it can cause cancer but didn’t ban it because organic farmers have “no viable alternatives.” Natural and synthetic pyrethrin pesticides are powerful neurotoxins, highly toxic to bees, cats, and fish, and linked to leukemia and other health problems in humans. Rotenone is a highly toxic pesticide that can enhance the onset of Parkinson’s disease. There are many more examples.
Moreover, GMO crops use 37% fewer chemical insecticides and herbicides than conventional versions of the same crops (because biotech crops have systemic or internal biological protections against insects). Indian farmers who plant GMO cotton have doubled their cotton production, dramatically reduced insecticide use and prevented over two million pesticide poisoning cases a year.
2. Biotech foods threaten human health. Organic interests consistently claim that GE foods cause higher incidences of everything from cancer and autism to diabetes and obesity.
Scientific and regulatory bodies worldwide have found that biotech foods are as safe and healthy as foods produced by conventional breeding, including the World Health Organization, European Food Safety Authority, British Royal Society, American Medical Association, and US National Academy of Sciences, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration.
More than 100 Nobel Laureates in chemistry, medicine and biotechnology have likewise said crops and foods improved through biotechnology are “as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production.” Worldwide and with over four trillion US servings of foods containing at least one biotech ingredient, “there has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption.”
3. Organic is more sustainable. Organic interests claim their methods increase soil health and organic matter, enhance natural fertility and ensure long-term sustainability.
In reality, organic crops require more land, water, hand weeding, chemicals, and expense to generate the same amount of food. Expanding organic farming would cause further wildlife habitat loss and reduced biodiversity when we are trying to protect natural habitats and feed Earth’s seven billion people.
Biotech crops allow farmers to produce more food, from less land, using less water and fewer pesticides, and with greater resistance to droughts, floods, and climate change, than is the case with conventional crops – and certainly with organic crops. GE crops achieve much higher food yields per acre – whereas organic farms require 40% more land to as much as 70% more land to produce the same amount of food as their conventional or biotech counterparts.
Biotechnology also enables farmers to grow Golden Rice, which prevents malnutrition, blindness, and death in African and Asian children. Greenpeace commits eco-manslaughter by battling this crop.
4. Organic foods are tastier and more nutritious. This assertion is likewise unsupportable.
Stanford University and other studies have repeatedly found that organic foods are no healthier or more nutritious than conventional or GE alternatives, while taste tests in Germany discovered that “discerning” foodies could not tell the difference between organic food and McDonald’s chicken nuggets!
But despite these facts, the endless campaigns of false, misleading, unsubstantiated claims, full-frontal attacks on biotech and conventional farming, and outright lies are clearly working. Thousands of companies pay the Non-GMO Project big bucks to get “GMO-Free” butterfly emblems on over 55,000 products – including salt, orange juice, tomatoes and other items that have no biotech counterparts.
US and EU consumers actually think organic food is better, tastier and more nutritious than conventional or biotech food – and are willing to pay up to 50% more for “organic” milk, bread, fruits, and vegetables. Less than 40% of American adults believe genetically modified foods are safe to eat.
Many of the most outrageous activist campaigns are funded directly or indirectly by organic and natural food companies and allied foundations. They’re often conducted along or in coordination with lawsuits against glyphosate (Roundup) and campaigns against neonicotinoid pesticides and biotechnology, to expand organic industry market share and profits, and drive entire companies and industries out of business. Non-GMO Project director Megan Westgate proudly proclaims her goal is “to shrink the market for existing GMO ingredients and prevent new commercial biotech crops” from ever being introduced.
The FDA says trying to enforce its rules would force it to go after every container and company that make false, misleading, deceptive, pejorative organic claims. That’s nonsense. It would only have to go after a few of the biggest, worst, most prominent violators. Others would fall in line pretty quickly.
A few Warning Letters could tell organic farmers, manufacturers and retailers to cease making these claims or marketing their products until they provide replicable, convincing, peer-reviewed evidence that organic foods are chemical-free, safer, more nutritious, more eco-friendly than conventional or GMO varieties – and that GE crops have harmed people or the environment in demonstrable ways.
Organic producers and retailers could also be required to test their foods for residues of toxic organic chemicals. Give them six months to comply – and follow up with legal actions, major fines, and requirements that every miscreant issue front-page and top-of-their-website admissions and apologies.
The FDA, EPA, Agriculture Department and Federal Trade Commission have shown little tolerance for other industry violations. Big Organic should no longer be exempt from the truth in advertising rules.
Saw a bottle of honey that stated no GMO and organic.
Many years ago when this organic thing was just catching on, I knew a farmer that said he’s making good money selling grain as organically grown. I asked him just what that process involved, to grow his grain organically.
He simply said the process was to sign a document certifying it was organic. The grain he sold was no different than that sold to the local grain company.
With this organic craze now days more of a lefty thing, I don’t care if they get screwed or not.
Bookmark
We MUST protect the SJWs’ confidence in their smugness! How else can their sanctimony be sufficient for Virtue Signals?!?! THIS is the #1 campaign issue of the decade!!
I will always remember the FR poster here who demanded that all food have a gmo label, after all what did the sticker cost? 10 for a penney.
“Organic” is a molecule that contains carbon.
Any other use is strictly artistic.
I prefer inorganic food.
An apple is genetically different from an orange.
Which one is safe to eat?
Very discriminating bees?
So maybe they are both save to eat. Just don't eat the seeds. Apple seeds are poisonous and I just read that orange seeds are edible
Non-GMO Hemlock: Safe, nutritious, delicious.
Almost all foods we consume are genetically modified. We have been genetically modifying plants and animals for millennia.
Almost all foods are organic—they contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, which makes them organic by definition. I am not going to pay extra for food because the farmer used different pesticides, soil conditioners, etc., than conventional farmers.
One other item in the “natural food” craze is the attempt by the far left to ban eating meat in the name of the environment. Animals can eat vegetation that humans cannot. This means that they can eat parts of food crops that would otherwise be discarded. Forcing an all vegetarian (or vegan) diet on the population would not only make people more aggressive/less emotionally stable, it would increase land use for food production significantly. Increasing the acreage needed for food production does not strike me as very environmentally friendly.
In truth, organic products tend to have better nutritional profiles and to be less damaging to the environment. Yet facts matter and the specifics vary as to each product and crop, how they are grown, and as to each agricultural chemical and how they are used. Notably, the scientific research on the subject must be treated with caution because it is skewed in favor of agricultural chemicals due to a combination of sponsorship and suppression by Monsanto and other producers.
In the coming years, we are likely to see a trend in developed countries toward having organic produce grown indoors under artificial light, free of pesticides, pests, and plant diseases. Meanwhile, the use of robots and AI is likely to result in diminished use of pesticides and herbicides in field agriculture.
“We have been genetically modifying plants and animals for millennia.
Pretty sure we’ve been selectively breeding and not gene splicing...
The methods we have been using for thousands of years resulted in a far greater amount of gene splicing and other genetic modifications than the current targeted methods used in the lab. As an analogy, it is as if people in the past painted their houses by throwing containers of paint and hoping for a good result, but currently we have the tools to apply the paint exactly where we want it.
Genetic engineering involves using enzymes, extracted from living organisms, to manipulate DNA in ways that nature has been manipulating DNA for eons. The difference is that we apply intelligence to the process.
I was watching the second episode of “Smallville”. There was a scene where the Kents have a place at the farmers market. It appears they are mostly selling apples.
Clark puts up a sign. It reads, “Kent Organic Produce”. They never miss a chance to be PC.
I’m surprised that the FDA has not cracked down on the food brand Evol, even though people snark that they don’t want to eat anything “evol”.
The level of intelligence and data posts in this particular thread is at best laughable.
I will give one example as a start
Soybeans
When you grow the GMO version you can spray it with roundup and the plant does not die but weeds and other plants do. The Chemical goes into the ground where it does not disappear but interacts and becomes another there. So then you eat the soybeans that have this chemical on them as well as in them and I am supposed to believe that this is ok.
I noted recently that even distillers of Vodka are touting their product as GMO free as they know that when the crop is used to distill into a product residues will be present. If not why would they care, something is driving this need to tout no GMO.
There is much much more going on in this whole rodeo but as I noted many here choose to eat whatever they want and that is their right to do so. At least one said they prefer GMO foods, again, Choose, but do so wisely
Increasing yield while creating problems in the Human population that feeds another industry like Pharma is big business
Interesting, very interesting...
I had an interesting and eye-opening discussion with our local grocery store produce manager last week.
He told me that a shopper putting a SINGLE non-organic item into the organic inventory causes them to throw out the ENTIRE organic bin! A shopper picking up just one non-organic apple and putting it into the organic apples requires all the organic apples to be thrown away. They have to then also thoroughly clean the organic apple bin before replenishing it with new “uncontaminated” organic apples. He said this is a result of federal laws and regulations. He mentioned several other such practices leading to similar waste, but this one really stood out.
He said the waste this causes is just unbelievable.
It’s no wonder that “organic” foods cost so much more. There is no way we can feed the world with the low efficiency and productivity of “organic” ag practices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.