ECONOMICS OR SMARTER CONSUMERS?
Why are Americans Really buying less of certain products?
Is It Due To Economics or Growing Concerns about health and safety?

A recent article on MSN Money discussed the fact that "due to the economy" people have seriously cut back on cereal, soda and detergent.

However, I prefer to believe that most people are more well educated than ever before, and are cutting back on these items for a totally different reason: product safety!

We shall take the same examples from the article and look at the issue from a completely different angle.

More and more people are becoming aware of the fact that, for the last ten to fifteen years, they have been 'guinea pigs' for companies like Monsanto, who have, for years, been creating genetically modified seeds (referred to as GMO's - the development of which began in the 1980's) that were distributed to farmers for extremely cheap, or for free in some instances, with the promise of increased yields and higher profits. This has proven to be a false promise, as an increase in yields has not been forthcoming, and increased need for the very herbicides and pesticides that Monsanto sells, has become necessary in order to kill the newly resistant strains of insects that are attacking these GMO plants in the fields.

It has been recently admitted by many manufacturers that most of the processed, ready to mix and prepared foods in America are produced using GMO grains. The safety of GMO's have been questioned by a large segment of the scientific community. That is finally filtering down to the average consumer, who is concerned for the health and safety of their family.

There have been many in the scientific community who have voiced concerns about the safety of GMO's. Some of those concerns are related to what happens to the grains when genetically modified and the effects it has on the bodies of both humans and animals who consume them..

Monsanto, the largest company modifying seeds, has boasted that it's efforts have 'increased the protein level of wheat'. What protein might that be one may ask? Well, the protein in wheat is Gluten. Gluten has, for a very long time, caused some very sensitive individuals to become extremely ill. The sensitivity/allergy results in mild to severe digestive tract problems, the worst of which is Crohn's disease. To create a "super wheat" that has more Gluten in it, could explain why those people who were not previously sensitive to Gluten, now exhibit digestive tract problems.

This issue of Gluten is not limited to wheat. It also includes, to a greater or lesser degree (depending on which grain is involved) Rye, Barley, and Triticale. Recently it has been noticed that, due primarily to genetic modification, Corn and Corn products can also cause these digestive issues in sensitive people, due to the inability of the body to tell corn gluten protein from the more obvious wheat gluten.

SODA:

We have been hearing recently, how drinking any carbonated, flavored soda is bad for our health. First of all, one must remember what soda consists of. They all contain carbonated water, flavorings (both artificial and natural, depending on the manufacturer), and some kind of sweetener, and preservatives. Most of the ones on the market today use "High Fructose Corn Syrup" as the sweetener. (Keep in mind that this High Fructose Corn Syrup has been made with GMO corn in at least 80% of the products on the market for consumers today.) This has been connected to the obesity epidemic in the United States, as most people drink far too much for their own good. It also has been pointed out as a major contributing factor in the increase in the incidence of diabetes as well. Depending on the colorings used, they also may contribute to health issues, as some have been banned in other countries. Water is still the best drink for good health, yet many Americans drink far less than is healthy.

The average family of four washes approximately 80 pounds of laundry per week—or 35 billion loads of laundry per year using about 17.5 billion cups of laundry detergent. Not only can you come in contact with caustic chemicals from your clothing, from having been washed in these detergents, but you can breathe their residual fumes into your lungs during the process of doing your laundry.

The detergent you're using may contain a cocktail of potent cancer-causing chemicals, some of which the manufacturer doesn't even have to list on the label. This loophole reduces the odds that you'll ever discover what's in there.
Four of the worst offenders are:
Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS)/sodium laureth sulfate (SLES)
1,4-dioxane
NPE (nonylphenol ethoxylate)
Phosphates
Not only are these chemicals potentially damaging to your health, but they are also contaminating waterways and harming the environment.

According to an article in the Journal of Oleo Science, a laundry detergent concentration of only 2 ppm can cause fish to absorb DOUBLE the amount of chemicals they would ordinarily absorb. The accumulation of these compounds—phosphates and toxic surfactants—in the environment through wastewaters has had a terrible impact on aquatic wildlife. During the manufacturing process of the surfactant, Sodium lauryl sulfate, because of the process used to produce it, is contaminated with 1,4 dioxane —a known carcinogen.

One may question why these products made it to market, since the FDA approved their use.

Let's take a look at the reasoning behind these things that are so potentially dangerous being approved by the FDA without requiring so much as an extended testing period. The FDA puts its stamp of approval on many kinds of questionable products for the unwitting consumer. Keep reading to find an interesting example of their "oversight".

According to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), its responsibilities include "Protecting the public health by assuring that foods are safe, wholesome, sanitary and properly labeled." This responsibility includes regulating a large number of companies producing the food we eat, making appointments to the high-level positions within the agency very important.

In the early 1980s, agribusiness corporations were developing genetically engineered plants, animal drugs, and livestock, but no system was in place to regulate the development, sale, or use of these products. The first government body to establish guidelines for biotechnology research was the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1976. Because the NIH is an advisory and not a regulatory body, it could create guidelines, but it had no power to enforce them, relying on the scientific community to self-regulate what they produced.

In 1977 and 1978, 16 bills to regulate genetic research were introduced in the US Congress. None of them passed, and at that time, since the NIH guidelines - which dealt primarily with medical and pharmaceutical research and did not take a precautionary approach - remained the sole regulatory mechanism for biotechnology research.

In 1986, the job of regulating bio-engineered organisms in food and drugs was delegated to the already existing FDA (Food and Drug Administration). The United States Department of Agriculture would regulate genetically engineered crop plants and animals. The Environmental Protection Agency would regulate genetically engineered organisms released into the environment for pest control. And the NIH would look at organisms that could affect public health. This set-up, however had overlapping responsibilities, and a total lack of communication between agencies. Now for a closer look at the FDA and their possible conflict of interest.

While most high-level FDA employees have a background in either medicine or law, some of the highest ranking appointees are either from the Monsanto Company, or, upon leaving the FDA, for some unknown reason, are given high positions within Monsanto.

Michael R. Taylor, the FDA's deputy commissioner for policy, who helped write the guidelines announced in February 1994, for the now controversial drug rBGH, (The gene-altered drug, bovine somatotropin, which stimulates cows to increase milk production by up to 20 percent), was publicly exposed as a former lawyer for the Monsanto corporation for seven years, during which time he helped Monsanto figure out whether or not the corporation could sue states or companies that wanted to tell the public that their products were free of Monsanto's drug.

Taylor wasn't the only FDA official involved in rBGI-1 policy who had worked for Monsanto. Margaret Miller, deputy director of the FDA's Office of New Animal Drugs was a former Monsanto research scientist who had worked on Monsanto's rBGH safety studies up until 1989.

Suzanne Sechen was a primary reviewer for rBGH in the Office of New Animal Drugs between 1988 and 1990. Before coming to the FDA. she had done research for several Monsanto-funded rBGH studies as a graduate student at Cornell University. Her professor was one of Monsanto's university consultants and a known rBGH promoter.
Other Monsanto alumni include Arthur Hayes , commissioner of the FDA from 1981 to 1983, and consultant to Searle's public relations firm, which later merged with Monsanto.

Michael A. Friedman , former acting commissioner of the FDA, later went on to become senior Vice President for Clinical Affairs at Searle, which is now a pharmaceutical division of Monsanto.

Virginia Weldon only became a member of the FDA's Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee, after retiring as Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto.

Those of us concerned about the health and environmental hazards of genetic engineering, along with the obvious connection between the biotechnology industry and federal regulating agencies, can see a serious conflict of interest here.

Monsanto, being well aware of being accused of a questionable connection with the FDA and other government agencies, issued several press releases denying any collusion with the government. Monsanto even posted on its official website that collusion theories relating to these agencies, including the FDA, "ignore the simple truth that people regularly change jobs to find positions that match their experience, skills and interests. "

Monsanto's insistence of innocence leaves one with a "thou protesteth too much" feeling. They are doing a delicate balancing act between those appointments to these top agency positions and their alumni employees. The importance of the food industry and those regulating it is obvious. We, the consumers, need to communicate to those corporations in the only way they understand - through their profits. Stop buying their products! Demand Organic produce, and non-GMO labeled products. We have a right to know what is in our food. Our future generations depend on us to keep them safe.

ECONOMICS OR SMARTER CONSUMERS?
Why are Americans Really buying less of certain products?
Is It Due To Economics or Growing Concerns about health and safety?

A recent article on MSN Money discussed the fact that "due to the economy" people have seriously cut back on cereal, soda and detergent.

However, I prefer to believe that most people are more well educated than ever before, and are cutting back on these items for a totally different reason: product safety!

We shall take the same examples from the article and look at the issue from a completely different angle.

More and more people are becoming aware of the fact that, for the last ten to fifteen years, they have been 'guinea pigs' for companies like Monsanto, who have, for years, been creating genetically modified seeds (referred to as GMO's - the development of which began in the 1980's) that were distributed to farmers for extremely cheap, or for free in some instances, with the promise of increased yields and higher profits. This has proven to be a false promise, as an increase in yields has not been forthcoming, and increased need for the very herbicides and pesticides that Monsanto sells, has become necessary in order to kill the newly resistant strains of insects that are attacking these GMO plants in the fields.

It has been recently admitted by many manufacturers that most of the processed, ready to mix and prepared foods in America are produced using GMO grains. The safety of GMO's have been questioned by a large segment of the scientific community. That is finally filtering down to the average consumer, who is concerned for the health and safety of their family.

There have been many in the scientific community who have voiced concerns about the safety of GMO's. Some of those concerns are related to what happens to the grains when genetically modified and the effects it has on the bodies of both humans and animals who consume them..

Monsanto, the largest company modifying seeds, has boasted that it's efforts have 'increased the protein level of wheat'. What protein might that be one may ask? Well, the protein in wheat is Gluten. Gluten has, for a very long time, caused some very sensitive individuals to become extremely ill. The sensitivity/allergy results in mild to severe digestive tract problems, the worst of which is Crohn's disease. To create a "super wheat" that has more Gluten in it, could explain why those people who were not previously sensitive to Gluten, now exhibit digestive tract problems.

This issue of Gluten is not limited to wheat. It also includes, to a greater or lesser degree (depending on which grain is involved) Rye, Barley, and Triticale. Recently it has been noticed that, due primarily to genetic modification, Corn and Corn products can also cause these digestive issues in sensitive people, due to the inability of the body to tell corn gluten protein from the more obvious wheat gluten.

SODA:

We have been hearing recently, how drinking any carbonated, flavored soda is bad for our health. First of all, one must remember what soda consists of. They all contain carbonated water, flavorings (both artificial and natural, depending on the manufacturer), and some kind of sweetener, and preservatives. Most of the ones on the market today use "High Fructose Corn Syrup" as the sweetener. (Keep in mind that this High Fructose Corn Syrup has been made with GMO corn in at least 80% of the products on the market for consumers today.) This has been connected to the obesity epidemic in the United States, as most people drink far too much for their own good. It also has been pointed out as a major contributing factor in the increase in the incidence of diabetes as well. Depending on the colorings used, they also may contribute to health issues, as some have been banned in other countries. Water is still the best drink for good health, yet many Americans drink far less than is healthy.

The average family of four washes approximately 80 pounds of laundry per week—or 35 billion loads of laundry per year using about 17.5 billion cups of laundry detergent. Not only can you come in contact with caustic chemicals from your clothing, from having been washed in these detergents, but you can breathe their residual fumes into your lungs during the process of doing your laundry.

The detergent you're using may contain a cocktail of potent cancer-causing chemicals, some of which the manufacturer doesn't even have to list on the label. This loophole reduces the odds that you'll ever discover what's in there.
Four of the worst offenders are:
Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS)/sodium laureth sulfate (SLES)
1,4-dioxane
NPE (nonylphenol ethoxylate)
Phosphates
Not only are these chemicals potentially damaging to your health, but they are also contaminating waterways and harming the environment.

According to an article in the Journal of Oleo Science, a laundry detergent concentration of only 2 ppm can cause fish to absorb DOUBLE the amount of chemicals they would ordinarily absorb. The accumulation of these compounds—phosphates and toxic surfactants—in the environment through wastewaters has had a terrible impact on aquatic wildlife. During the manufacturing process of the surfactant, Sodium lauryl sulfate, because of the process used to produce it, is contaminated with 1,4 dioxane —a known carcinogen.

One may question why these products made it to market, since the FDA approved their use.

Let's take a look at the reasoning behind these things that are so potentially dangerous being approved by the FDA without requiring so much as an extended testing period. The FDA puts its stamp of approval on many kinds of questionable products for the unwitting consumer. Keep reading to find an interesting example of their "oversight".

According to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), its responsibilities include "Protecting the public health by assuring that foods are safe, wholesome, sanitary and properly labeled." This responsibility includes regulating a large number of companies producing the food we eat, making appointments to the high-level positions within the agency very important.

In the early 1980s, agribusiness corporations were developing genetically engineered plants, animal drugs, and livestock, but no system was in place to regulate the development, sale, or use of these products. The first government body to establish guidelines for biotechnology research was the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1976. Because the NIH is an advisory and not a regulatory body, it could create guidelines, but it had no power to enforce them, relying on the scientific community to self-regulate what they produced.

In 1977 and 1978, 16 bills to regulate genetic research were introduced in the US Congress. None of them passed, and at that time, since the NIH guidelines - which dealt primarily with medical and pharmaceutical research and did not take a precautionary approach - remained the sole regulatory mechanism for biotechnology research.

In 1986, the job of regulating bio-engineered organisms in food and drugs was delegated to the already existing FDA (Food and Drug Administration). The United States Department of Agriculture would regulate genetically engineered crop plants and animals. The Environmental Protection Agency would regulate genetically engineered organisms released into the environment for pest control. And the NIH would look at organisms that could affect public health. This set-up, however had overlapping responsibilities, and a total lack of communication between agencies. Now for a closer look at the FDA and their possible conflict of interest.

While most high-level FDA employees have a background in either medicine or law, some of the highest ranking appointees are either from the Monsanto Company, or, upon leaving the FDA, for some unknown reason, are given high positions within Monsanto.

Michael R. Taylor, the FDA's deputy commissioner for policy, who helped write the guidelines announced in February 1994, for the now controversial drug rBGH, (The gene-altered drug, bovine somatotropin, which stimulates cows to increase milk production by up to 20 percent), was publicly exposed as a former lawyer for the Monsanto corporation for seven years, during which time he helped Monsanto figure out whether or not the corporation could sue states or companies that wanted to tell the public that their products were free of Monsanto's drug.

Taylor wasn't the only FDA official involved in rBGI-1 policy who had worked for Monsanto. Margaret Miller, deputy director of the FDA's Office of New Animal Drugs was a former Monsanto research scientist who had worked on Monsanto's rBGH safety studies up until 1989.

Suzanne Sechen was a primary reviewer for rBGH in the Office of New Animal Drugs between 1988 and 1990. Before coming to the FDA. she had done research for several Monsanto-funded rBGH studies as a graduate student at Cornell University. Her professor was one of Monsanto's university consultants and a known rBGH promoter.
Other Monsanto alumni include Arthur Hayes , commissioner of the FDA from 1981 to 1983, and consultant to Searle's public relations firm, which later merged with Monsanto.

Michael A. Friedman , former acting commissioner of the FDA, later went on to become senior Vice President for Clinical Affairs at Searle, which is now a pharmaceutical division of Monsanto.

Virginia Weldon only became a member of the FDA's Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee, after retiring as Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto.

Those of us concerned about the health and environmental hazards of genetic engineering, along with the obvious connection between the biotechnology industry and federal regulating agencies, can see a serious conflict of interest here.

Monsanto, being well aware of being accused of a questionable connection with the FDA and other government agencies, issued several press releases denying any collusion with the government. Monsanto even posted on its official website that collusion theories relating to these agencies, including the FDA, "ignore the simple truth that people regularly change jobs to find positions that match their experience, skills and interests. "

Monsanto's insistence of innocence leaves one with a "thou protesteth too much" feeling. They are doing a delicate balancing act between those appointments to these top agency positions and their alumni employees. The importance of the food industry and those regulating it is obvious. We, the consumers, need to communicate to those corporations in the only way they understand - through their profits. Stop buying their products! Demand Organic produce, and non-GMO labeled products. We have a right to know what is in our food. Our future generations depend on us to keep them safe.