Corruption of Food Production Thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Corruption of Food Production Thread

Postby 2012 Countdown » Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:30 am

Image
Demonstrators protest near the Monsanto plant in Davis this morning. Some wore costumes, such as "Biohazard Bob" (in white suit) and "Miss GMO," the letters standing for "genetically modified organism." The activity comes an a day when Occupy protests were under way in several cities.


Occupy protestors demonstrate outside Monsanto plant in Davis
By Bill Lindelof
blindelof@sacbee.com
By Bill Lindelof The Sacramento Bee
Last modified: 2012-09-17T15:13:33Z
Published: Monday, Sep. 17, 2012 - 7:28 am
Last Modified: Monday, Sep. 17, 2012 - 8:13 am

About 50 protestors, on the one-year anniversary of the beginning of the "Occupy" movement, were in front of a Monsanto plant in Davis this morning, saying they want to shut down the local office of the multinational biotechnology company.
In March, protestors staged a similar protest. At that time, the Missouri-based company decided not to open its Davis office and did not make anyone available for comment.
Davis police were monitoring the situation about 7 a.m. today as protestors sat, stood and paced outside Monsanto. Demonstrators had one driveway to the Monsanto complex partially blocked with yellow caution tape.
Protestors carried signs that said "Occupy will bring Monsanto to its knees" and "Genetic Contamination is forever." Some of the protestors wore costumes resembling hazardous material protective gear.
Steven Payan, representing Occupy Woodland, in a news release accused the company of "mass pollution to environment."
Protestors said the effort is in conjunction with other "shut down" Monsanto demonstrations worldwide.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/17/482737 ... rylink=cpy
George Carlin ~ "Its called 'The American Dream', because you have to be asleep to believe it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
User avatar
2012 Countdown
 
Posts: 2293
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:27 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Corruption of Food Production Thread

Postby ninakat » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Bear in mind that this is an MSM article.

10 things farm stands won’t tell you
Sept. 17, 2012, 10:01 a.m. EDT
Charles Passy, MarketWatch

Tempted by roadside produce? Remember the sour that comes with the sweet. Here are 10 things farm stands won’t tell you.

1. “Call us Farm Stand Inc.”

Ah, the old farm stand, that seasonal roadside wellspring of sweet, ready-to-be-shucked corn, crisp and juicy apples or jugs of real maple syrup. But that humble stand has now become big business—in more ways than one. Spurred by the “eat local” movement, consumers are flocking to stands connected to family farms (and those farms account for fully 96% of the 2.2 million farms in the United States). No less an authority than the U.S. Department of Agriculture calls the trend of selling directly to consumers “an important new opportunity for small and beginning farmers and ranchers to become financially secure.”

But it’s not just the farm-stand movement as a whole that’s gaining ground. Individual stands are also thinking big, with many morphing into year-round, full-scale enterprises--like supermarkets in touristy packaging. Such “stands,” which can have annual sales in the millions of dollars, offer everything from souvenirs to prepared meals. At the Avila Valley Barn in San Luis Obispo, Calif., for example, raspberries and blackberries share space with packaged gourmet goods, bakeware, barbecue accessories, cookbooks and even educational toys. The stand says on its website that it’s trying to re-create a bygone era of country living: “It makes one feel that they have stepped back in time--to the simpler, sweeter days of yesteryear.”

For some eat-local purists and old-school farmers, there’s nothing simple about this. They argue that the bigger-is-better thinking can go against the connect-with-the-soil spirit of the classic stand. “It’s very off-putting to see a farm stand without very much ‘farm’ to it,” says Sara Trunzo, the food and farm projects coordinator for Unity College in Maine. But stand operators counter that consumers are voting with their dollars--if they didn’t like what was happening, they wouldn’t be buying. Plus, in an age of $90 theme park tickets, stand operators say they offer family fun at a relatively low cost. At the Avila Valley Barn, the hay rides are actually free. “We just want people to experience agriculture,” says proprietor Debbie Avila.

2. “It’s fresh from a farm--just not this one.”

New England farmers don’t devote acreage to citrus. South Florida farmers aren’t in the apple business. But these days, shoppers shouldn’t be surprised to see out-of-area produce at their area farm stands. For that matter, they shouldn’t be surprised to learn that local specialties come from other local farms: The fact remains that many stands are a clearinghouse for all sorts (and all sources) of produce and other farm fare.

Critics charge that this approach can border on the deceptive, since consumers come to a farm stand expecting to buy from that very farm. They also say it takes away some of the local flavor--literally--that is associated with farm stands. “I cringe when I see a whole stand’s worth of goods from somewhere else,” says Frank McClelland, a renowned New England chef who’s also the proprietor of the Apple Street Farm in Essex, Mass. But even McClelland says there can be a certain rationale to offering select items from other farms: It provides both convenience and quality to the customer. For example, knowing that his farm can’t produce enough honey to meet demand, he sources additional honey from a nearby farm whose product he trusts. But for some other farm stands, there’s a purely economical logic; that is, they can’t make enough money just selling their own product.

3. “And what we grow may not be organic, either.”

While there’s plenty of current debate as to whether organic produce is actually healthier to consume [ :roll: :roll: :roll: ], the fact remains that it’s still in demand. And that demand may be augmenting the popularity of farm stands, since these local purveyors of produce and other goods are often tied to small-scale farms that adhere to organic practices. It’s all part of the movement embracing a way of eating that’s more socially and environmentally conscious and that’s theoretically healthier by virtue of being largely pesticide-free.

But here’s the truth: “Local” and “organic” are far from synonymous [duh]. In fact, small-scale farmers may find it especially challenging to seek out organic certification, say experts, because it adds considerable expense to operations that are often fairly lean in the first place. And it’s not just the costs of the actual production--organic farming can be very labor intensive--it is also the cost for the certification itself. Frank McClelland of Apple Street Farm in Essex, Mass., says he’d have to spend $3,000 on the paperwork in the first year alone. For now, he’s not bothering with it, despite the fact that he’s already farming organically, he says.

The take-away for consumers: If they place a high premium on organic, they shouldn’t hesitate to ask about certification—or, at the very least, to inquire about the farm’s growing practices. And even if a farm stand doesn’t sell organic produce, consumers may be able to take comfort in the fact they’re reducing their carbon footprint by not shopping for items that have been shipped across the country.

4. “So much for that crisp apple.”

It’s easy for foodie-minded shoppers to see supermarket produce as second best compared with the straight-from-the-farm variety. But supermarkets have one distinct advantage over roadside stands--namely, refrigeration. By keeping certain items at the ideal temperatures and conditions--apples are best at 32 degrees Fahrenheit and 90% humidity, while lettuces and some other greens are best kept slightly moist, according to the Cornell University Cooperative Extension--markets are able to ensure a degree of freshness and crispiness. At roadside stands, “storage” often extends to no more than keeping those apples on display in a basket--with no temperature or humidity control. The result, say experts, is that the apple starts to lose quality within days of being picked.

5. “You’re not necessarily getting our best produce.”

A roadside stand can be an important source of income to a farm, but it’s rarely the only one. These days, farms build relationships with all sorts of “customers” -- produce wholesalers, restaurants, even other farms. They also bring their goods to large, urban farmers’ markets or sell them through community-supported agriculture programs, popularly known as CSAs (essentially, a way of offering “shares” of that year’s crops). For consumers, this can be good news: A farm that can make money in different ways is a farm that’s going to be around in the long run, say experts. But it also means that the roadside shoppers might not always be getting the farm’s choicest offerings. “Some restaurants are willing to pay to have first pick,” says Will Gilson, a Boston-area chef who also runs a seven-acre vegetable and herb farm. Other reasons that farmers love to sell to restaurants: “It’s consistent money and it’s large-quantity orders,” Gilson adds.

6. “This place is a zoo.”

For a select number of mega stands, it’s not just about fruits or vegetables—or even souvenirs. It’s about the stand as seasonal theme park, especially during the fall harvest. Think hayrides, corn mazes and, yes, petting zoos--all leading up through Halloween and occasionally beyond. At the Bates Nut Farm in Valley Center, Calif., for example, almost every fall weekend day is set aside for a different event, from a Farm Education Day to a costume contest. The farm, which says it no longer grows any nuts on site (it’s more cost-effective to source them from large California growers), also hosts dog shows and rents out its facilities for weddings. Naturally, critics decry this “agritainment” trend for the same reason they decry that stands are selling more than just produce--ultimately, it puts the focus on something other than agriculture. But operators of large stands say it’s all in good fun and does help to promote farming in a broader sense.

7. “Wanna pick your own? It’ll cost you.”

Some farms go beyond the stand and invite the public into their fields to pick their own produce. But this cherished tradition has gotten a new twist: A few of these farms are now charging picking fees--as much as $10-plus per person. The farms say it’s a necessary cost to cover what pickers eat in the fields. But pickers say it’s turned a trip to the farm into an unexpectedly expensive outing. The Consumerist.com, a consumer advocacy site, shared the story of one picker’s recent experience: The cost at one orchard worked out to be more than $20 per person, including a $13.50 picking fee (not mentioned on the orchard’s website) and a $7 charge for a small bag of pick-them-yourself apples. The Consumerist.com’s assessment: “Sometimes the businesses out to mislead you and rip you off aren’t monolithic global corporations. They’re a farm in the next town over.”

8. “We fight for our right to child labor.”

Farm stands may represent agriculture in its most folksy form. That doesn’t stop the family farms behind them from playing political hardball, however. In recent years, family farmers have fought political battles over any number of issues, from lobbying in favor of giving undocumented farm workers legal status to lobbying against further strengthening of child labor laws (many farmers employ their children). Critics have questioned whether small farmers have the public’s best interests at heart. For example, when the farmers pushed back on regulations regarding food safety, saying they couldn’t afford to put the same controls in place as larger farms, Quality Digest, a trade publication that covers regulatory issues, challenged that notion: “Although one can sympathize with the small farmer trying to do business without the interference of Big Brother, [the] argument may not carry much weight. The problem with the food safety issue is that defective quality can quite literally mean death.” But farm-industry advocates and lobbyists counter that family farms are often at risk of being over-regulated, given the challenging economics of small-scale agriculture. The legislative situation “just gets out of control,” says Don Parrish, director of congressional relations at the American Farm Bureau, a lobbying group.

9. “Just try finding us.”

The most prominent roadside stands try to use a choice location to their advantage. Many farm stands and you-pick operations, however, are deep into farm country—and are hard to locate, even with a GPS. On PickYourOwn.org, which lists farms throughout the country, customer comments tell stories of wayward rural journeys. Farmers feel the frustration, too: One California grower volunteered: “When you are ready to come, email me and I will send you a map. Do not trust Internet mapping services or GPS.” In that vein, PickYourOwn.org suggests that visitors always contact the farm in advance--not just for directions, but also because “weather, heavy picking and business conditions can always affect [a farm stand’s] hours and crops!”

10. “We might not make it.”

At its peak, in the mid-1930s, America was home to nearly 7 million farms. The decline since then speaks to the fact that farmers are selling out--in more ways than one--because of the spread of Big Agriculture (big farms looking to gobble up small farms) and the suburbanization of rural land. When South Florida farm stand owner Robert Moehling was asked in 2006 about what types of things farmers in his area were growing, he said matter-of-factly: “Houses.” And while the real-estate bust of recent years has softened demand, many farmers say they still consider selling the farm--it is almost always a surer way to make money than working the land.

Of course, for all the farmers who want to cash out, there are always a few ready to enter the arena and open their own farm stand in the process. Take Dylan Tomine, a conservation advocate and author who purchased a you-pick blueberry farm a year ago on Washington’s Bainbridge Island (a suburb of Seattle) and now runs it with his family. While he concedes that selling the farm “is the backup plan for most farmers,” he says he sees children and their parents picking in his fields and feels a sense of satisfaction that’s hard to equal. “We’re not just selling blueberries. We’re selling participation in your food,” he concludes.
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Corruption of Food Production Thread

Postby ninakat » Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:25 pm

The GMO debate is over; GM crops must be immediately outlawed; Monsanto halted from threatening humanity
Friday, September 21, 2012
by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) The GMO debate is over. There is no longer any legitimate, scientific defense of growing GM crops for human consumption. The only people still clinging to the outmoded myth that "GMOs are safe" are scientific mercenaries with financial ties to Monsanto and the biotech industry.

GMOs are an anti-human technology. They threaten the continuation of life on our planet. They are a far worse threat than terrorism, or even the threat of nuclear war.

As a shocking new study has graphically shown, GMOs are the new Imagethalidomide. When rats eat GM corn, they develop horrifying tumors. Seventy percent of females die prematurely, and virtually all of them suffer severe organ damage from consuming GMO. These are the scientific conclusions of the first truly "long-term" study ever conducted on GMO consumption in animals, and the findings are absolutely horrifying.

(continues)

+ + +

Monsanto Roundup weedkiller and GM maize implicated in ‘shocking’ new cancer study
19 Sep 2012 | By Elinor Zuke, The Grocer

The world’s best-selling weedkiller, and a genetically modified maize resistant to it, can cause tumours, multiple organ damage and lead to premature death, new research published today reveals.

In the first ever study to examine the long-term effects of Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, or the NK603 Roundup-resistant GM maize also developed by Monsanto, scientists found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, developed mammary tumours and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females, compared with 23 and 14 months respectively for a control group.

“This research shows an extraordinary number of tumours developing earlier and more aggressively - particularly in female animals. I am shocked by the extreme negative health impacts,” said Dr Michael Antoniou, molecular biologist at King’s College London, and a member of CRIIGEN, the independent scientific council which supported the research.

GM crops have been approved for human consumption on the basis of 90-day animal feeding trials. But three months is the equivalent of late adolescence in rats, who can live for almost two years (700 days), and there have long been calls to study the effects over the course of a lifetime.

(continues)
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Perelandra » Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:15 pm

Marion Nestle's opinion with links at her website. http://www.foodpolitics.com/2012/09/what-to-make-of-the-scary-gmo-study/
The California Prop. 37 proponents (and I’m totally with them) already have a strong “right to know” argument. They don’t need to be distracted by the kinds of scientific arguments that are already raging about this study (see, for example, the British Science Media Centre’s collection of criticisms).

For more information about the study:

The British Sustainable Food Trust has a website devoted to this study.

Tim Carman wrote about it in the Washington Post (I’m quoted)

Andrew Pollack has a sensible piece in the New York Times

France calls for a ban on GM foods

Additional clarification: I very much favor research on this difficult question. There are enough questions about this study to suggest the need for repeating it, or something like it, under carefully controlled conditions.
“The past is never dead. It's not even past.” - William Faulkner
User avatar
Perelandra
 
Posts: 1648
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:12 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Corruption of Food Production Thread

Postby ninakat » Fri Sep 28, 2012 6:06 pm

Thanks Perelandra. I was just reading up a bit about Prop. 37 after seeing barracuda's posting about some of the propositions up for a vote. It's going to be a real battle to get GMO foods labeled, apparently.

Just look at this PDF file from UC Davis and it's "Background on Genetically Modified Crops" on page 6 which attempts to equate laboratory genetic engineering with natural hybridization. Academia is such a cesspool.

Colin Carter, UC Davis wrote:Background on Genetically Modified Crops

The genetic modification of plants has gone on for hundreds of
years. Scientific varietal selection and crossing of most grains has
genetically modified them numerous times. Genetically modified,
also called genetically engineered or transgenic crops, like Roundup
Ready® soybeans, are developed by transferring genes from one
organism to another. For instance, the Roundup-tolerant gene
comes from a natural bacterium which is found in the soil.

Compared to traditional plant breeding, modern biotechnology can
produce new varieties of plants more quickly and efficiently. In addition,
biotechnology can introduce desirable traits into plants that could not
be established through conventional breeding techniques. In many
countries around the world, ongoing research will introduce genes into
crops that will give plants resistance to herbicides, insects, disease,
drought and salts in the soil, as well as increasie nutrient efficiency.


(Colin Carter is a professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at UC Davis and director of the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics.)

+ + + + +

There's a huge difference, of course, between GMOs and natural hybrids. Educating people (from outside of academia!) is necessary.

Hybrids vs. GMOs
By Heidi Lewis

To understand the difference between genetically modified food and naturally hybridized food, we need to understand the hybrid process. Natural hybridization is nothing more than a cross between two related species or cultivars. Hybrids have happened naturally throughout history via cross-pollination, but gardeners, farmers, and horticulturists have created the bulk of modern hybrids (such as the many stone fruit combos), often over the course of many years.

Sometimes, the result of a plant pairing (both in the wild and controlled) turns out to be superior to the parent plants. This is known as “hybrid vigor.” Some of the hundreds of vigorous results we benefit from are slicer tomatoes, tangelos, peppermint, seedless watermelon, grapefruit, and even wheat—in other words, hundreds of naturally raised foods we eat every day. Included in this group of plants that have, over many years, made or been bred for adaptation, are roses, irises, and other cut flowers. On the animal side, a great example of hybrid vigor is the mule: intelligent, patient, sure-footed—a better work partner than either its horse or donkey parents.

To hybridize plants, you need to be a keen observer and have deep knowledge of the plants you want to improve. Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, spent his monastic life observing pea plants. Luther Burbank, the genius behind much of the produce we eat today, has said, “The secret of improved plant breeding, apart from scientific knowledge, is love.”

Genetically engineered or GMO foods are not hybridized foods. They can contain genetic material from one organism (say a fish) that would never naturally be found in another organism (say a tomato). GMO experiments have actually included combining fish and tomatoes, and bacteria with corn—not improvements we would want to eat.

. . .
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Corruption of Food Production Thread

Postby hanshan » Fri Sep 28, 2012 6:29 pm

...

ninkat:

It's going to be a real battle to get GMO foods labeled, apparently.

Just look at this PDF file from UC Davis and it's "Background on Genetically Modified Crops" on page 6 which attempts to equate laboratory genetic engineering with natural hybridization. Academia is such a cesspool.


Yeah, - unfortunate

...
hanshan
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:04 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Corruption of Food Production Thread

Postby ninakat » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:37 pm

User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Perelandra » Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:36 pm

One short video and more at the link. Please consider sending one to contacts in CA, where Monsanto and others have spent $50 million on deceptive advertising.




http://www.youtube.com/user/Carighttoknow
“The past is never dead. It's not even past.” - William Faulkner
User avatar
Perelandra
 
Posts: 1648
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:12 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Corruption of Food Production Thread

Postby Nordic » Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:46 am

Not only deceptive advertising, but they are now sending out crap like this:

Image

Which looks completely like some sort of official Democratic Party "here's how we recommend you vote" sort of thing, telling you to vote "NO" on Prop 37.

Unbelievable. I got it today and had to look into it, because, while I'm no fan of the Democratic Party these days (as, ahem, most of you are probably aware), this thing had the taint of the bogus to it.

And sure enough, it's put out by a group that has a history of this kind of shit.

But how many little old ladies will get this and think "oh my goodness, it looks like I really should vote NO on prop 37!"

Ya know?

This isn't just deceptive, it's an outright scam.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: Corruption of Food Production Thread

Postby justdrew » Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:31 am

it may be real, unless the California Democratic Council has disavowed it. I've used their contact form to ask, I wonder if they'll answer? Seems like it was a real org, don't know how significant it is now.

http://whois.gwebtools.com/cdc-ca.org
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Corruption of Food Production Thread

Postby Luther Blissett » Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:38 pm

That flyer doesn't look like its designed by a trained designer, if that makes sense. It looks typical of conservative groups' efforts to ape progressive groups' aesthetics.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Corruption of Food Production Thread

Postby ninakat » Tue Nov 06, 2012 5:10 pm

User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Perelandra » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:35 pm

Too bad about Prop 37, but the fight continues.


“The past is never dead. It's not even past.” - William Faulkner
User avatar
Perelandra
 
Posts: 1648
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:12 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Corruption of Food Production Thread

Postby crikkett » Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:11 pm

FOOD & DRINK
May 4, 2011

Why Wood Pulp Makes Ice Cream Creamier

By SARAH NASSAUER

What is often in shredded cheese besides cheese?

Powdered cellulose: minuscule pieces of wood pulp or other plant fibers that coat the cheese and keep it from clumping by blocking out moisture.

Cellulose can improve the texture of packaged food products, including bottled chocolate milk shakes.

One of an array of factory-made additives, cellulose is increasingly used by the processed-food industry, producers say. Food-product makers use it to thicken or stabilize foods, replace fat and boost fiber content, and cut the need for ingredients like oil or flour, which are getting more expensive.

Cellulose products, gums and fibers allow food manufactures to offer white bread with high dietary fiber content, low-fat ice cream that still feels creamy on the tongue, and allow cooks to sprinkle cheese over their dinner without taking time to shred.

Cellulose additives belong to a family of substances known as hydrocolloids that act in various ways with water, such as creating gels.

The rising cost of raw materials like flour, sugar and oil is helping boost the popularity of these additives, producers of the ingredients say.

Demand for cellulose is also rising because of the growing popularity of processed food products in China, India and other countries, and because consumers are demanding low-fat or nonfat foods that still have a creamy texture.

While some food manufactures say they aren't increasing the percentage of cellulose in their products, others are boosting the amount of fiber in their foods with cellulose and other ingredients. Companies can save money by using it, even though it costs more by weight than conventional ingredients. Cellulose gives food "more water, more air, a creamy feeling in [the] mouth with less of other ingredients," and only a very small amount is needed, says Niels Thestrup, vice president of the hydrocolloids department for Danisco AS. The Copenhagen-based company makes ingredients and enzymes for food, cleaning supplies and other products.

Cellulose is especially popular because it can be used in many ways in food and is relatively inexpensive at about $2.50 to $3 a pound for one type his company makes, says Mr. Thestrup. The company's sales of hydrocolloids had been rising 3% to 5% a year over the past decade, but in the past two years, sales are up about 6% to 8%.

Even organic-food products can contain cellulose.

Organic Valley uses powdered cellulose made from wood pulp in its shredded-cheese products. The company would prefer not to use a synthetic ingredient, but cellulose is bland, white and repels moisture, making it the favored choice over products such as potato starch, says Tripp Hughes, director of product marketing for Organic Valley.

Only powdered cellulose in its least manipulated form can be used in foods labeled "organic" or "made with organic" ingredients by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Even packaged food products labeled as organic can contain cellulose.

Cellulose comes in various forms, each with a specific use. Beyond powdered cellulose, two other modified forms are common in food. Microcrystalline cellulose is either listed as such on labels, as MCC, or in some cases as cellulose gel. Carboxymethyl cellulose or cellulose gum, another modified version, is listed as such on labels. Each gives foods a slightly different texture—from gelatinous to more liquid-like—because they trap varying amounts of air or water.

Powdered cellulose is made by cooking raw plant fiber—usually wood—in various chemicals to separate the cellulose, and then purified. Modified versions go through extra processing, such as exposing them to acid to further break down the fiber.

Although the notion of eating fine grains of wood pulp might make some consumers blanch, nutritionists say cellulose—which gives plants their structure—is a harmless fiber that can often cut calories in food. Insoluble dietary fibers like cellulose aren't digestible by humans so add bulk to food without making it more fattening.

In the U.S., cutting calories from food doesn't cause a problem because the country is in the grip of an obesity epidemic, says Joanne Slavin, professor of food science and nutrition at the University of Minnesota. She served as chairwoman the carbohydrate committee of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

Cellulose can serve as a good source of dietary fiber for people who don't eat enough fruits, vegetables or whole grains, Ms. Slavin says. The USDA's most recent dietary guidelines recommend young women get 28 grams a day of fiber and young men consume 38 grams.

"Cellulose is cellulose," regardless of if whether it comes from wood pulp or celery, says Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a group that advocates healthier, more nutritious food. He says no research points to health problems related to consuming cellulose.

The Food and Drug Administration sets limits on the amount of cellulose in certain foods like cheese spreads and jams. The USDA also limits the amount of cellulose in meat products to about 1% to 4%, depending on the type, in order to meet the agency's standards for protein content.

Kraft Foods Inc. uses forms of cellulose made from wood pulp and cotton in products including shredded cheese and salad dressing. "Cellulose has unique properties making it the best choice to perform certain functions, such as anticaking, thickening and replacing fat," says spokeswoman Susan Davison.

Kraft and Organic Valley say cellulose makes up less than 1% of their shredded-cheese products. A Nestlé SA spokeswoman says the company uses various types of cellulose to improve the texture of some products.

Meat processor Tyson Foods Inc. TSN +0.56% uses cellulose on some cooked products to help maintain glazes or breading, but doesn't use it as a filler, a spokesman says. Kellogg Co. is raising the amount of dietary fiber in its products with cellulose and other fibers like psyllium and bran, says a spokeswoman.

Write to Sarah Nassauer at sarah.nassauer@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 03916.html
crikkett
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Postby Perelandra » Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:08 pm

Are Wal Mart and Big Food Lobbying the FDA for a GMO Labeling Law?
January 10, 2013

High-level executives from some of the U.S.’s largest food corporations are meeting with the FDA behind closed doors this week to lobby for a mandatory federal GMO labeling law. Could it be that bad press and consumer backlash have dulled the enthusiasm of these former biotech cheerleaders? Or is Big Food just cozying up to the FDA so they can derail the growing organic and anti-GMO movement, and finagle a federal labeling law so toothless it won’t be worth the ink it takes to sign it?
http://www.alternet.org/food/are-wal-mart-and-big-food-lobbying-fda-gmo-labeling-law
“The past is never dead. It's not even past.” - William Faulkner
User avatar
Perelandra
 
Posts: 1648
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:12 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 170 guests