Re: More on Irradiated Foods

August 23, 2008

Solution - buy organic, don't eat out unless you know them, support

and buy from local farms/CSA's/Co-ops and start a garden, no matter

how small

Bright wishes,

Liz

>

> This really really worries me. I woke up this morning with it on my

> mind.

> There's the whole gamut of health hazards from the irradiation

> itself, see, for instance

> http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/Irradiation%20fact%20sheet.pdf

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiated_food

> Now, add to that unholy brew Codex Alimentarius, that intends to ban

> all supplements and vitamins, and we have no access to natural

> nutrients.

> If you now put this together with all the ongoing pollution and

> poisoning [vaccines, pesticides, Chemtrails, nanotechnology] and

> massive repudiation of natural laws [robots, cloning, etc.], the

> overall picture becomes a gigantic planning designed to cut us off

> Planet Earth, denying our need for what has sustained us for as long

> as humans have existed on the planet.

> Their design is a purely *mental* construct [that's reflected in all

> the policies of this bunch of psychopaths, including their foreign

> policy]. Of course, they want massive depopulation [allegedly up to

> 90% of today's population] and a NWO type of global society [Masters

> & Slaves Only]. But, even beyond this, they would cut off our

> spiritual bond with the Earth. We are children of the Earth

> physically, emotionally and spiritually. They intend to replace what

> makes us human... with what? I shudder to think of it, it isn't just

> " ignorant, " it's repulsive beyond words.

> Just my 2 cts. anyway....

> =============

> http://www.naturalnews.com/023956.html

> FDA Plots to Mislead Consumers Over Irradiated Foods

>

> Saturday, August 23, 2008 by: Mike

>

> (NaturalNews) NaturalNews has learned that the FDA is intentionally

> plotting to deceive consumers over the labeling of irradiated foods,

> attempting to eliminate any requirement for informative labeling or

> replace the word " irradiated " with " pasteurized. "

>

> In a feature story published by NaturalNews yesterday, we stated that

> the FDA does not require foods to be labeled as irradiated. We

> received a lot of questions from readers about that point, with some

> stating the FDA does, in fact, require foods to be labeled when

> irradiated. This is not always correct: Most foods are not required

> to be labeled as irradiated. This story explains the FDA's food

> irradiation labeling policy in more detail and reveals the FDA's plot

> to deceive consumers by misleading them into thinking irradiated

> foods are NOT irradiated.

>

> Foods that are exempt from irradiation labeling

>

> According to current FDA regulations, any food used as an ingredient

> in another food does NOT have to be labeled as irradiated. For

> example, if you buy coleslaw, and the cabbage in the coleslaw has

> been irradiated, there is no requirement that the coleslaw carry any

> labeling indicating it has been irradiated.

>

> However, if raw cabbage is irradiated, then current FDA regulations

> do require it to carry an irradiation label. This label, however, is

> a symbol, not text, and many consumers have no idea what the symbol

> really means -- it actually looks like a " fresh " symbol of some sort.

> In no way does it clearly indicate the food has been irradiated. This

> is the FDA's way to " hide " the fact that these foods have been

> irradiated. (The symbol looks a lot more like leaves under the sun

> than food being irradiated...)

>

> That same head of cabbage, by the way, if served in a restaurant,

> requires absolutely no irradiation labeling. All restaurant foods are

> excused from any irradiation labeling requirement. As stated at the

> FDA's own website (1):

>

> Irradiation labeling requirements apply only to foods sold in stores.

> For example, irradiated spices or fresh strawberries should be

> labeled. When used as ingredients in other foods, however, the label

> of the other food does not need to describe these ingredients as

> irradiated. Irradiation labeling also does not apply to restaurant

> foods.

>

> How the FDA plans to deceive consumers and further hide the fact that

> foods are being irradiated

>

> As stated above, the FDA does not want consumers to realize their

> foods are being irradiated. Consumer awareness is considered

> undesirable by the FDA; an agency that also works hard to censor

> truthful statements about nutritional supplements and functional

> foods. Accordingly, the FDA pursues a policy of enforced ignorance of

> consumers regarding irradiated foods, nutritional supplements,

> medicinal herbs and all sorts of natural substances. It is currently

> illegal in the United States to state that cherries help ease

> arthritis inflammation if you are selling cherries. (http://

> www.naturalnews.com/019366.html)

>

> On the food irradiation issue, the FDA is now proposing two things

> that are nothing short of astonishing in their degree of deceit:

>

> FDA proposal #1: Irradiated foods shouldn't be labeled as irradiated

> unless consumers can visibly tell they're irradiated.

>

> This ridiculous proposal by the FDA suggests that foods shouldn't be

> labeled as irradiated unless there is some obvious material damage to

> the foods (like their leaves are wilting). Thus, foods that don't

> appear to be irradiated should not have to be labeled as irradiated.

>

> Imagine if this same ridiculous logic were used to regulate heavy

> metals content in foods: If consumers can't SEE the heavy metals,

> then they should be declared free of heavy metals!

>

> FDA proposal #2: Irradiated foods should be labeled as " pasteurized, "

> not " irradiated. "

>

> This FDA proposal is so bizarre that it makes you wonder whether the

> people working at the FDA are smoking crystal meth. They literally

> want irradiated foods to be labeled as " pasteurized. "

>

> And why? Because the word " pasteurized " sounds a lot more palatable

> to consumers, of course. Never mind the fact that it's a lie.

> Irradiated foods are not pasteurized, and pasteurized foods are not

> irradiated. These two words mean two different things, which is

> precisely why they each have their own entries in the dictionary.

> When you look up " irradiated, " it does not say, " See pasteurized. "

>

> But the FDA is now playing the game of thought police by manipulating

> the public with screwy word replacement games that bear a strange

> resemblance to the kind of language used in the novel 1984 by

> Orwell. And it is, indeed, an Orwellian kind of mind game that the

> FDA wants to play with the food supply: After unleashing Weapons of

> Mass Destruction (radiation) onto the foods, the FDA wants to label

> them all as simply being " pasteurized, " keeping consumers ignorant

> and uninformed.

>

> How do I know the FDA wants to do this? The agency said so itself in

> an April 4, 2007 document filed in the Federal Register (Volume 72,

> Number 64). As published in the document (2):

>

> FDA is also proposing to allow a firm to petition FDA for use of an

> alternate term to " irradiation'' (other than " pasteurized''). In

> addition, FDA is proposing to permit a firm to use the term

> " pasteurized'' in lieu of " irradiated,'' provided it notifies the

> agency that the irradiation process being used meets the criteria

> specified for use of the term " pasteurized'' in the Federal Food,

> Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) and the agency does not object to

> the notification.

>

> Did you follow all that mind-warping logic? The FDA is essentially

> begging a company to petition it to use the term " pasteurized "

> instead of " irradiated " as long as they both result in the food being

> killed. Once it receives such a petition, it will approve it,

> claiming it is meeting " the needs of industry. "

>

> The FDA already allows lots of word substitutions in the areas of

> health and medicine. The phrase " Toxic Poison " has been replaced with

> " Chemotherapy, " for example. " Over-medicated with dangerous

> psychiatric drugs " has been replaced with the term, " Treatment. " And

> the phrase, " Regulated with life-threatening synthetic chemicals " has

> been replaced with the word " managed, " as in " her diabetes has been

> managed. "

>

> So why not introduce all sorts of other word substitutions that might

> continue the Orwellian " Ministry of Language " propaganda put forth by

> the FDA?

>

> I say we substitute the word " medicated " with " treated " and " treated "

> with " rewarded. " That way, when a patient describes what drugs she's

> on, she can say, " I've been rewarded with ten different prescriptions! "

>

> Better yet, let's replace the word " surgery " with " enhancement. " So

> anybody who undergoes heart bypass surgery, for example, can say

> they've really just had " Heart bypass enhancement! "

>

> It sounds a lot easier to swallow, doesn't it? And that's what it's

> all about, folks, when it comes to irradiating the food supply:

> Making it all sounds a lot less treacherous than it really is.

> Control the words and you control people's ideas, and if there's one

> thing the tyrannical FDA is really, really good at, it's controlling

> words!

>

> What the FDA really wants to accomplish

>

> Let's get down to some blunt truth about the FDA's real genocidal

> agenda. What the FDA wants here is two things:

>

> 1) The destruction of the food supply (genocide)

> 2) The complete ignorance of the consuming public (nutritional

> illiteracy)

>

> Genocide and illiteracy. Ignorance and fear. Tyranny, radiation and

> chemicals... These are the things the FDA truly stands for.

>

> That pretty much sums up the FDA's intent on this whole food

> irradiation issue. Destroy the food and mislead the People. And then

> wait for the windfall of profits at Big Pharma as the People

> degenerate into a mass of diseased, disoriented and desperate health

> patients. It's business as usual at the FDA.

>

> That's why Dr. Duke, creator of the world's largest

> phytochemical database (http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke), had this to

> say about the FDA's food irradiation policy:

>

> " Perhaps the FDA should call up a billion dollar team to consider

> irradiating another health hazard - the FDA itself, which is almost

> as dangerous to our health as the pharmaceutical industry. "

>

> Why I call this the unleashing of " Weapons of Mass Destruction "

>

> In my previous article on this issue, I've called this food

> irradiation agenda a " Weapon of Mass Destruction " against the food

> supply. A couple of readers questioned me about that. Why, they

> asked, do I consider food irradiation to be a WMD?

>

> WMDs include weapons that indiscriminately cause damage to people and

> infrastructure that serves the People. Dumping a radioactive

> substance into the water supply that serves a major city, for

> example, would be considered using a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

>

> Interestingly, the use of Depleted Uranium by the U.S. military in

> Iraq and Afghanistan is also an example of Weapons of Mass

> Destruction, making the U.S. guilty of yet more crimes against

> humanity. (A previous example is the dropping of nuclear weapons on

> Japan's civilian population in World War II.)

>

> Irradiating the food supply is also an application of Weapons of Mass

> Destruction, and here's a thought experiment that will clearly

> demonstrate it:

>

> Suppose you wanted to irradiate your own garden vegetables. The

> minute you start trying to buy a machine that produces radiation, you

> would be quickly considered a terrorist and investigated by the FBI.

> They would visit your home and ask, " Why do you need a radiation

> machine? " And if you said you needed to irradiate your garden

> vegetables, they would look at you like you were completely nuts and

> probably haul you into the local FBI field office for yet more

> questioning, all while considering you a possible terrorist and

> likely adding your name to the no-fly list so you could never travel

> on commercial airlines.

>

> If you don't believe me, try to acquire a high-powered radiation

> emitting device and see what happens...

>

> So why is it considered bizarre and possibly criminal when an

> individual buys a radiation machine to irradiate their own foods, but

> when the FDA pushes the same agenda on a larger scale, they call it

> " safety? "

>

> Irradiated food isn't altered, claims the FDA

>

> Of course, the FDA says the irradiated food isn't altered by the

> radiation. This statement is an insult to the intelligence of anyone

> with a pulse. Why? Because if the radiation doesn't alter anything,

> then how can it kill e.coli and salmonella?

>

> The whole point of the radiation is to kill living organisms. And it

> works by causing fatal damage to the tissues and DNA of those

> microorganisms. So guess what it does to the plants? Since radiation

> isn't selective, it also irradiates the plant fibers and tissues,

> causing DNA damage and the destruction of enzymes and phytochemicals.

>

> Amazingly, the FDA claims this does not count as " altering " the food

> because these changes aren't visible.

>

> If it weren't such a nutritional atrocity, it would be downright

> hilarious. DNA changes are not visible to the human eye, but they can

> result in serious health consequences. Just ask anyone born with two

> Y chromosomes.

>

> Eat up, guinea pigs!

>

> Of course, the radiation pushers will claim that nobody really knows

> whether irradiating the food kills just 1% of the phytochemicals or

> 99% (or something in between). And they don't know what the long-term

> effect is on human health, either. This is exactly my point: The

> irradiation of fresh produce is a dangerous experiment, and we've all

> been involuntarily recruited as guinea pigs.

>

> I will be curious to see a serious scientific inquiry into the

> nutritional damage caused to fresh produce by irradiation. I also

> find it simply astonishing that this decision by the FDA has been

> made in the absence of such scientific studies. Much like it does

> with the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA prefers to poison the

> people first, and then figure out later just how much damage might

> have been caused.

>

> I say when you're dealing with the food supply, you should err on the

> side of caution. We are talking about the health of the nation here.

> This is not a small matter. It should be treated with extreme

> caution, skepticism and scientific scrutiny. Instead, it is being

> addressed with a gung-ho attitude framed in mind games and enforced

> ignorance.

>

> In other words, rather than figuring out whether food irradiation is

> actually safe, the FDA would rather simply pretend it is.

>

> Welcome to Make Believe Land, where all your food is now safe and

> nutritious, courtesy of the FDA!

>

> Sources:

>

> (1) http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-fdb33.html

>

> (2) http://www.foodsafety.gov/~lrd/fr070404.html

>

> =====

>

> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

> interest in receiving the included information for research and

> educational purposes.

>

August 23, 2008