United States Department of Agriculture

Manufacturers Deceive Consumers With “Organic” Product Names

~ admin ~ 3 Comments

EWG  July 29 2013

Savvy consumers know that cosmetics do not have to be tested and proved safe before making it onto store shelves. Consumer protections for personal care products are outdated and broken, so shoppers must do their own legwork to ensure that the products they buy are safe – by reading labels and using resources such as EWG’s Skin Deep database.

But making sense of the labels on cosmetic products isn’t easy.

Manufacturers use the term “organic” in their product names to mislead consumers about the sources of the ingredients. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the federal agency that regulates cosmetics, acknowledges that it does not “define or regulate the term ‘organic’ as it applies to cosmetics, body care or personal care products.”

In fact, it’s the U.S. Department of Agriculture that regulates the term “organic,” whether in food or cosmetics. But there’s a Catch-22. Although cosmetic products containing agricultural ingredients are eligible for USDA’s organic certification, that agency says it’s not authorized to regulate the “production and labeling of cosmetics… that are not made up of agricultural ingredients, or do not make any claims to meeting USDA organic standards.”

This means that cosmetics that don’t contain agricultural ingredients can deceptively use the word “organic” in the product name without penalty from either USDA or FDA.

It’s important to understand the components of product labels. The “principal display panel” – the front label – is the portion with the product name, logo and, when applicable, the USDA Organic Seal. The ingredient information panel is on the back and lists ingredients. Though manufacturers do not always provide a full list of ingredients.

When it comes to “organic” claims, here are the facts:

If a company is selling a product that does contain agricultural ingredients and wants to label it organic, it must abide by these rules under USDA’s National Organic Program:

  • Products labeled “100% organic” can contain only organically produced ingredients. They can display the USDA Organic Seal.
  • Products labeled simply “organic” must contain a minimum of 95 percent organically produced ingredients. They are also permitted to display the USDA Organic Seal. Non-organic ingredients must be USDA-approved and appear on the National List of allowed and prohibited substances.
  • Products labeled “made with organic xxxxx” (for example, “Made with organic rosemary”) must contain a minimum of 70 percent organically produced ingredients. They may not display the USDA Organic Seal but can list up to three of the certified organic ingredients on the front label.
  • Products containing less than 70 percent organic ingredients cannot display the USDA Organic Seal or use the term “organic” on the front label. These products are permitted to list certified organic ingredients on theback panel only.
  • The listed percentages of organic material cannot include water and salt.
  • All products must provide the name and address of a USDA-accredited certifier, a private company hired to document that the product complies with the agency’s rules.

Continue reading →

1960 USDA Film Admits Scientists “Fixed The Glutens In Flour”

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Truthstream Media.com July 9 2013

Gluten-free kinda ‘sick’? 1960 USDA film admits scientists “fixed the glutens in flour” [~4 minute video]

As I’ve reported before, it’s not just some new food fad; gluten is actually making people all kinds of sick and slowly killing others.

Wheat, a major source of gluten, also happens to be the the number two food subsidized by our government; it’s grown all over the place and put into a large majority of our foods. Studies have shown that back in the 1950s, one in around 5,000 people might have a severe and potentially deadly allergy to gluten known as Celiac’s Disease; now it’s more like a staggering one in 133.

In short, in 60 years, here’s what Celiac Disease figures look like by the decade in America:

1950s: 1 in 5,000
2010s: 1 in 133

Continue reading →

Alert: Monsanto Rider Slips Through Senate, Hour Glass Running…

~ admin ~ 1 Comment

Activist Post March 23 2013

MonsantoThe rider (Sec. 735) that would prevent courts from halting illegally planted GM crops (sometimes courts find fault with USDA-approved GM fields) slipped into the Senate Continuing Resolution spending bill HR 933 blind-sided an angry populace last week, giving little time to voice complaint before it was to go through the Senate.

On Wednesday morning, HR 933 passed with the new rider dubbed by activists as the Monsanto Protection Act therein. The rider has nothing to do with proposed government spending to keep it running for the next six months.

Alliance for Natural Health (ANH-USA) reported earlier:

Once the CR passes the Senate, it will move to the House and Senate conference committee to resolve any differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. Since this rider was not in the House version of the bill, there’s a slim possibility the rider will not be in the final duly passed version.

The general consensus on the Hill is that once the Senate acts, the House Appropriations Committee leadership is prepared to take the modified Senate CR directly to the House floor, possibly as early as Thursday. This is why urgent grassroots action is required to ensure that does not happen.

If this “must-pass” bill gets signed into law, it would be the point of no return for unhindered Monsanto havoc. They would trump federal court power and courts would not be able to use authority to stop sales or planting of any illegal or hazardous genetically modified crops. Strange for biotech giants to want this rider, as the USDA already gives them unheeded approval without safety testing of their crops. Rider (Sec. 735) clinches Monsanto power – if the USDA or court system wants to halt GM crops or revoke approval, they cannot. It’s also an open backdoor to whisk in future approvals.

This action is detrimental to farmers who want to fight against Monsanto’s patent infringement lawsuits, those for the preservation of organic crops against GM contamination, and our export economy as so many other countries have adopted GM bans. This Monsanto-driven rider is simply an industry ploy to continue to plant GM crops even when a court of law has found they were approved illegally – But it’s being voted on urgently.

Continue reading →

The GMO Lie Threatens Life On Earth Yet Some Resist

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Activist Post February 13 2013

In 62 United States counties, citizens have the right to know if their food has been genetically altered, and more communities throughout the US (in some 37 states) are continuing to fight against unlabeled GM foods. The American population continues to learn of the harm GM is doing to our farmlands, to our bodies, and to the Earth’s biodiversity. Yet, Monsanto and other Bio Tech companies continue to submit new GM crops for approval with the USDA and the FDA, including the “Botox” GMO apple and GM’ed salmon.

Food regulators have been approving GMO foods for over 20 years, with very little independent research conducted to understand the long-term effects that GMO will have on humans and the environment. Thankfully, more of such research is now being undertaken by universities, independent scientists, and, the regulators. For example, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently revealed that several commercial GMO products include fragments of the viral gene called Gene VI.

…many viral genes function to disable their host in order to facilitate pathogen invasion. Often, this is achieved by incapacitating specific anti-pathogen defenses. Incorporating such genes could clearly lead to undesirable and unexpected outcomes in agriculture. Furthermore, viruses that infect plants are often not that different from viruses that infect humans. For example, sometimes the genes of human and plant viruses are interchangeable, while on other occasions inserting plant viral fragments as transgenes has caused the genetically altered plant to become susceptible to an animal virus (Dasgupta et al. 2001). Thus, in various ways, inserting viral genes accidentally into crop plants and the food supply confers a significant potential for harm. (source)

Continue reading →